R v Javeth Vanterpool et Al

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Moise, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 October 2024
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2024] ECSC J1016-3
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO: AXAHCR2024/0004
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)

Between:

Rex

and

Javeth Vanterpool

Shekuim Lake Deonne Daniel Smith

Before:

His Lordship the Honourable Justice Ermin Moise

CLAIM NO: AXAHCR2024/0004

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CRIMINAL)

Appearances:

Mr. Thomas Astaphan KC and with him Ms. Erica Edwards and Mr. Theon Tross for the crown

Mrs. Josephine Gumbs-Connor and with her Mr. Carlyle Rogers for Mr. Javeth Vanterpool

Mr. Chesley Hamilton for Mr. Shekuim Lake and Mr. Deonne Smith

DECISION ON SENTENCING

Moise, J.

1 On 4 ^th January, 2020, Mr. Leroy Vanterpool was shot dead. Mr. Salih Raheem was also shot but survived his injuries. On 6 ^th February, 2024, Javeth Vanterpool was indicted in connection with the events of that day. He was however only indicted on one count of attempted robbery and a second count of conspiracy to rob. Mr. Shekuim Lake and Mr. Deonne Smith were also indicted on the same counts. However, they were further indicted on additional counts of murder and attempted murder. On 12 ^th October, 2024, the defendants all pleaded guilty to the counts of attempted robbery and conspiracy to rob. Shekuim Lake and Deonne Smith pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The crown accepted those pleas, and the matter was therefore set down for sentencing.

The Agreed Facts

2 The crown filed a document outlining the agreed facts of the case. It states that Mr. Leroy Vanterpool (Mr. Vanterpool) was the operator of a grocery store called Snails Carousel in Welches, Anguilla. On the night of 4 ^th January, 2020, Mr. Vanterpool was speaking with his friend, Mr. Salih Raheem, after the store was closed. Mr. Raheem was seated in his van. When that conversation was complete, Mr. Vanterpool walked towards his store. It was at that point, 3 persons approached him. Mr. Vanterpool shouted out and shots were fired at him. It is unclear, even at this stage as to who fired the shots. I also note here that the papers did not initially indicate that there was a third individual involved in this incident at the scene. The crown has however indicated that this information was obtained subsequently and would wish for the facts to reflect it. The crown also stated that this individual is now deceased and that he was the main person behind the actual shooting of Mr. Vanterpool and Mr. Raheem.

3 At the point of the shooting of Mr. Vanterpool, Mr. Raheem was still seated in his vehicle. He was approached by the gunman and shot. He received injuries to his chest and his right forearm but survived them. Mr. Raheem tried to drive away from the scene after being shot but was not successful as he lost consciousness and ran into a wall. He was assisted by paramedics who arrived on the scene thereafter and was taken to the Princess Alexandra Hospital.

4 It is agreed that all 3 defendants were part of a conspiracy to rob Mr. Vanterpool's grocery store. Javeth Vanterpool gave a statement to the police in which he indicated that his role in the matter was to drive by earlier to see whether the shop was still open. He was not involved in any plot to kill Mr. Vanterpool. He performed his role in the matter and informed the others of his findings. He played no further part in the incident and was not on the scene when the shooting took place. Shekuim Lake and Deonne Smith were however part of the actual robbery attempt. The grocery store was, in any event, not robbed. After shots were fired at Mr. Vanterpool, the assailants left the scene. However, in the process of doing so shots were fired at M. Raheem whilst he was seated in his van.

5 On the following day, Javeth Vanterpool was contacted by Deonne Smith requesting a ride on his motorcycle to the Blowing Point ferry terminal. Mr. Smith left the jurisdiction and went over to Saint Martin after his involvement in the incident.

The Procedural History

6 I pause here to make a few observations about the procedural history of this case, as it is an important feature in the sentencing process. I do so also because this court has, on many occassions, highlighted various gaps in the procedures adopted for indictable or hybrid matters. It is beyond time for these issues to be addressed and it is hoped that ongoing initiatives to reform the criminal justice system will assist in addressing those issues.

7 By 14 ^th January, 2020 a post mortem examination on Mr. Vanterpool had been complete. A ballistics report had also been presented to the police by 27 ^th February, 2020. Forensic analyst reports were all completed in this case by 18 ^th March, 2020. By 17 ^th January, 2020, Mr. Javeth Vanterpool had given what can be described as a confession of his involvement in this incident. Mr. Javeth Vanterpool was arrested and charged for offences in relation to this case on 20 ^th January, 2020. The other two defendants were similarly arrested and charged on 27 ^th and 29 ^th January, 2020.

8 Much of the relevant evidence in this case was collected by March, 2020. Yet, it took in excess of 2 years for a preliminary inquiry to be completed in this case. Even if one takes into account the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, concern is still raised regarding the manner in which such cases navigate the courts. A preliminary inquiry began taking evidence on 4 ^th February, 2021. It did not conclude until 24 ^th March, 2022. On that date the defendants were committed to stand trial in the high court. It appears that the defendants were unrepresented at the preliminary inquiry for what was then a murder charge for all 3 of them. There is nothing on the record to show that they were ever informed of their rights to at least apply for legal aid at an early stage in the process.

9 Despite the committal on 24 ^th March, 2022, an indictment was not laid against the defendants until 8 ^th February, 2024. That is almost 2 years after the committal and four years after the initial charges were laid. This is too long a time for matters of this nature to be brought before the high court for trial. At that point, neither defendant was represented, and very little case management had been done. It was then that issues of legal representation and legal aid were being discussed.

10 These procedural delays do have an impact on the sentencing process, and I will highlight this later on in this decision. However, it is important now to note that closer attention must be paid to the management of criminal cases in the justice system.

The Pre-Sentence Report

11 On 12 ^th October, 2024 the court ordered pre-sentence reports (PSR) in relation to all 3 defendants. I take the time now to publicly thank the team from the Department of Probation for the presentation of very thorough and helpful reports within a matter of days.

12 Insofar as it relates to Javeth Vanterpool, the reports indicate that Mr. Vanterpool has had no previous encounters with the law and is not known in his community or anywhere else as a violent person. He is now 23 years old but was 18 years old at the time of the offence. Generally, the information obtained from his parents, other relatives and members of the community were very positive. There is nothing in his family history which causes any alarm, and he was known to be active in sports. His time at school was also unremarkable insofar as it relates to any deviant or delinquent behaviour.

13 Reports from the Prison also indicate that Javeth has not been disruptive or disrespectful during his time there. He is described as being cooperative and works well with both staff and inmates.

14 Javeth Vanterpool has expressed remorse for what transpired on 4 ^th January, 2020. He stated that he was particularly remorseful because Mr. Vanterpool was his relative. He stated that on that date he was high on cannabis and that if there was anything in his past he would wish to change, it would be to avoid such circumstances. He has reflected on his life whilst in prison and made efforts to improve his attitude.

15 Mr. Vanterpool was assessed as presenting a moderate risk of re-offending on account of the nature of this incident. He, however, presents a low risk of causing harm to others and himself.

16 Shekuim Lake is now 25 years old and was 20 years old at the time of the offence. Mr. Lake has no previous convictions and was not in trouble with the law in any way prior to this offence. His home and family life are rather unremarkable and raises no issues as it relates to any deviant or delinquent behaviour. Reports from persons in the community indicates that he is a highly respectable and well-mannered young man. Community members expressed shock in knowing that he was involved in the events of 4 ^th January, 2020. He was known to play basketball and was dedicated to that sport.

17 Mr. Lake's attendance at school was also unremarkable except for two instances. Sometime in 2012 Mr. Lake was found to be involved with drugs and alcohol and was suspended for a brief period of time. In one other incident he was involved in throwing stones. I note here that Mr. Lake has admitted to smoking marijuana and being high on that drug on 4 ^th January, 2020 when the incident took place.

18 Mr. Lake was described by prison officials as being easy-going and calm during his time of incarceration. He is considered an overall good prisoner. He is employed in the prison as a wing-cleaner and a part time barber. He has expressed remorse for his actions and states that the whole situation is very sad, and it makes him feel terrible. He stated that at the time he was young and arrogant, and that Mr. Vanterpool was a good person whom he called uncle.

19 Mr. Lake is described as posing a medium level of risk of reoffending and harm to others due to the seriousness of the charges. However, this risk could be lowered with targeted interventions such as substance abuse counselling and vocational training.

20 Mr. Deonne Smith has no previous convictions and is not known to...