NASSAU, BAHAMAS- A man convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment has had his sentence sharply increased by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the original term was unduly lenient given the brutal nature of the attack and the grave injuries inflicted on the victim.
In a decision delivered on Thursday, the Court of Appeal quashed the ten-year sentence imposed on Mike Philius and substituted it with a sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment, less time spent on remand.
Philius had been convicted on 20 June 2024 in the Supreme Court, following a majority 7–2 jury verdict, of one count of attempted murder. The conviction arose from a violent early-morning shooting outside the victim’s home in August 2021.
The appeal, brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, challenged the sentence imposed by the trial judge on the sole ground that it was unduly lenient.
At approximately 6:00 a.m. on 25 August 2021, the victim, Jacqueline Similien, was reportedly at her residence with her boyfriend when they were alerted by the alarm on their vehicle parked outside. As her boyfriend went outside to investigate, Ms. Similien followed and observed suspicious activity involving several men in and around the yard.
Ms. Similien recognised one of the men as Philius, whom she had known for many years and who had an ongoing feud with her boyfriend. As she attempted to obtain the licence plate number of the men’s vehicle, she was attacked by another male who punched her repeatedly. Philius then produced a firearm and shot her in the pelvic area, causing her to fall to the ground.
While she lay injured, Philius struck her with the weapon and attempted to fire a second shot, but the firearm jammed and the clip fell to the ground. He then threatened to kill Ms. Similien and her family if she reported the incident before fleeing the scene with the other assailant, leaving her bleeding in the roadway. She was later assisted by a relative and taken to hospital, where she remained for nineteen days.
At the sentencing hearing in October 2024, the only evidence before the trial judge was a probation report. Philius, who was 36 at the time, had prior convictions for possession of dangerous drugs and possession with intent to supply, for which he had been fined earlier in 2021. He maintained his innocence and asserted that he had been wrongly convicted.
The trial judge identified both mitigating and aggravating factors, including the seriousness of firearm violence and the respondent’s criminal record. However, she concluded that the mitigating factors — including his age, family ties, employment history and perceived good character — outweighed the aggravating factors, and imposed a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.
In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed multiple errors in principle. The court found that she mischaracterised the respondent’s age as a mitigating factor, improperly treated him as a person of good standing despite recent convictions, and placed disproportionate weight on personal and rehabilitative considerations while failing to adequately reflect the gravity of the offence.
The appellate court further ruled that the sentencing judge misapplied earlier authorities and failed to situate the sentence within the established range for attempted murder cases involving firearms and severe injury. The court stressed that the deliberate use of a firearm, the sustained intent to kill, the vicious nature of the attack and the life-altering injuries suffered by the victim demanded a far more severe penalty.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the ten-year sentence fell well outside the range of sentences reasonably open to a properly directed sentencing judge. Finding no genuine mitigating factors and only aggravating features, the court determined that a sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.
The appeal was therefore allowed, the original sentence quashed, and a new sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment imposed, less time already served on remand.
