The Queen v Tyshaun Brown
| Jurisdiction | Bermuda |
| Judge | Shade Subair Williams J |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bermuda) |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 2020 No: 27 |
[2022] SC (Bda) 24 Cri (6 April 2022)
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 2020 No: 27
In the Supreme Court of Bermuda
Counsel for the Crown: Ms. Cindy Clarke, Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the Accused: Ms. Elizabeth Christopher, Christopher's
Section 297A of the Criminal Code (Manslaughter by reason of Diminished Responsibility) Sentencing Guidelines
RULING of Shade Subair Williams J
The Accused, Mr. Tyshaun Brown, appears before the Court for sentence, upon his guilty plea entered Wednesday 16 March 2022, to Count 1 on Indictment No. 27 of 2020 charging him with manslaughter, contrary to section 293 of the Criminal Code. The charge of manslaughter was accepted by the Crown on the ground of diminished responsibility as provided for by section 297A of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, the Crown did not proceed with Count 2 (murder) which was left on the file.
The facts of this case are dreadful and heart-wrenching. It entails the barbaric slaying of a beloved and adored 52 year old family man, who, on 7 July 2020, was senselessly butchered and mangled to death in an attack launched by his very own son, a young man soon approaching 28 years in age (D.O.B. 29 May 1994).
Over the course of these proceedings, this Court heard the sentencing submissions of the DPP, Ms. Cindy Clarke for the Crown and Ms. Elizabeth Christopher on behalf of the Accused. Those submissions were most ably made and well researched on both sides. For that, I am grateful to Counsel and thank them for their most valuable assistance.
On their overarching and competing positions, the Crown sought an immediate term of imprisonment to be fixed for a term between 25 and 35 years imprisonment. Defence Counsel, however, urged me to reject that range and to impose a fixed term sentence falling somewhere between 11 to 15 years of imprisonment.
On the Summary of Evidence placed before the Court, it is stated that the Accused telephoned his sister, Ms. Shauntorri Franks, (also the daughter of the Deceased) at approximately 11:30pm on that fateful night of 7 July 2020. The Accused informed her of what he was about to do, repeatedly stating ‘… I'm going to kill Daddy…’ as he and his father argued from inside the Deceased's car parked outside of the residence of the Accused's mother, Ms. Margaret Moore. The Accused's sister, Ms. Franks, hearing the ensuing dispute, warned her brother to ‘just walk away’. Instead, he persisted. The argument continued onto the residence porch at which point the Accused punched his father, knocking him off the porch and onto the ground. It did not end there; the Accused continued to punch his father on several more occasions. This did not draw an end to the attack on the Deceased. The Accused at that point went inside of the residence and told his panic-stricken mother that he was going to get a knife and kill his father. He told his mother that his father deserved to die.
Throughout this violent ordeal, Ms. Franks remained on the phone. In her Victim Impact Statement (“VIS”), she explained that she could hear her brother and father fighting in the background. The Accused subsequently handed his phone to his mother and directed her to talk to his sister, Ms. Franks. Having taken the phone, Ms. Moore urged Ms. Franks to attend the residence which she did, in company with her granny and aunty. It was also Ms. Moore, who made the 911 report to police. In the Summary of Evidence, it is said that Ms. Moore was “ distraught to the point of hysteria, making it difficult for the 911 operator to understand the exact address of the location of this disturbance.”
This Court was made to understand that the Accused retrieved a knife from an outside location of a neighbouring property and returned to the porch area where he stabbed his father repeatedly. The Deceased, now beaten and stabbed, mustered the energy to run away from the Accused. However, the Accused chased after his staggering father who was holding on to himself and leaning forward as he ran up a hill desperately seeking refuge. At this point, the Accused was confronted by a concerned neighbor to which the Accused responded with the knife in his hand; “ Mr. I would ‘effing’ [fucking] kill you”.
Another 911 caller reported that a chubby shirtless male was outside #9 Cedar Hill banging on the door. When police arrived at this address, they discovered the Accused covered in blood with a knife in his hands shouting and ranting that he had killed his own father and that he deserved ‘life’ [a life sentence].
After his arrest at the crime scene, the Accused called out to his mother and said; “ Sorry Mama, he deserved it. Take care of my baby, I'm sorry.” He said to his granny in the presence of the police officers; “ I did it Granny, its family matters, I did it, yea I killed my Daddy, he deserved it.” Later at Hamilton Police Station the custody sergeant asked the Accused if he knew why he was in custody to which he replied; “ I am here for killing my daddy. I know I'm doing life, I deserve it.”
The Accused was pronounced dead upon arrival to King Edward Memorial Hospital (“KEMH”). He suffered 26 separate stab wounds inflicted about his face, chest, arms, abdomen, left hand, right thigh and left leg. It is reported that many of the stab wounds penetrated his peritoneal cavity (a space within the abdomen where the stomach and other organs such as the spleen and liver are located). A single wound penetrated his heart and that a listed cause of his death was a form of shock termed hypovolemic shock, a fatal condition which disables the heart from pumping blood to the rest of the body, onset by severe blood loss.
When the defendant was examined by an on-call physician, he was observed to have only a cut on his right index finger. Acknowledging his injury, he said; “ Got these injuries from killing my daddy … I used a kitchen household knife.”
While it was not expressly stated in the Summary of Evidence, there is no dispute between the Crown and the Defence that the Accused had consumed a notable amount of alcohol on the night of 7 July, leading up to the killing.
Counsel for both sides relied on a report dated 14 January 2021 from Dr. Richard Sebastian Henagulph, a registered medical practitioner specializing in forensic psychiatry. Dr. Henagulph, known well to Courts of this jurisdiction for his expertise, was the Accused's medical officer during his detention at the Mid-Atlantic Wellness Institute after the killing in July 2020. Dr. Henagulph was also the Accused's visiting psychiatrist during his remand at Westgate Correctional Facility and interviewed him on 18 November 2020 in preparation for the making of his report for this Court.
Summarising his understanding from the Accused of the facts related to the present offence, Dr. Henagulph stated in his report [43–44]:
“ 43. Mr. Brown told me that on the day of the offence he had been at cricket training in Somerset. He reported that he had a beer with his teammates after training. After this his father picked him up with a friend of his father's and they all went for a drink together. He reported consuming two or three cups of Bacardi rum and Coke and said that his father had a few drinks as well. His father then drove him home.
44. He said an argument began between them in the car. Mr. Brown said it was “about [his] past – how [his] father's ex-wife didn't like [him]. And that [his] father wasn't around much.” He said that they had similar arguments in the past but they had been verbal not physical. He said that they continued arguing once outside of the car and he remembers punching his father but is not sure why he did so. He said the next thing he remembered was standing over his father with a knife and dropping the knife when police arrived. He said they arrested him without a struggle and he next remembers being in the police station. He said that he told the police doctor about his suicidal ideas which lead to his admission to MWI for further assessment.
On the subject of his relationship with his father, Dr. Henagulph said [45–47] and [72–73] :
45. On direct questioning he reported never having been in physical altercation with his father in the past.
46. He also spontaneously mentioned, as also documented in his mother's witness statement, that he used to pretend that his father had visited him at school when he had not.
47. I noted that while recounting the circumstances of the alleged offence, there was little in the way of emotion or tearfulness from Mr. Brown, which was in contrast to his description of the circumstances around his sister's death …
…
72. … When asked about his relationship with his father he said it was generally a good and close relationship.
73. Overall Mr. Brown presented as calm and cooperative on the ward if generally subdued. He reported some difficulties sleeping as he said, for example on 13 th July 2020, that when he closed his eyes he could see his father's shadow. There were episodes of tearfulness during which he expressed remorse at what had happened but also said he did not know why and or exactly what had happened.”
Dr. Henagulph reported that the Accused has a significant history of contact with mental health services provided to him during his years as a child and adolescent in response to his trauma resulting from an 8 August 2003 road traffic accident whereby his sister was tragically killed by the impact of a passing car. At that time, the Accused was only 8 years of age and his sister was 6 years old. He and his sister were getting off the bus hand in hand and were about to cross the road. However, the Accused heeded to the bus driver's warning for him to step back while his sister proceeded,...
To continue reading
Request your trial