NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Court of Appeal has upheld both the conviction and maximum seven-year sentence of a 65-year-old woman who threw acid on a woman she believed to be her husband’s sweetheart— leaving the woman permanently disfigured and blind.
Pandora McKenzie had appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was unduly severe, citing her age, clean record, and expression of remorse. She also insisted that she acted in self-defense and claimed that the victim, Stephanie Braynen was romantically involved with her husband, Edward Deveaux. However, both the Magistrates Court and the Court of Appeal rejected these claims, finding them unsupported by any evidence.
The attack occurred on November 8, 2020, after Mr. Deveaux invited Ms. Braynen to his home to clarify to McKenzie that there was no romantic involvement between them and to ease tensions. Instead, the meeting turned violent when McKenzie threw a corrosive substance into Ms. Braynen’s face and then armed herself with a cutlass—an escalation Mr. Deveaux managed to stop.
McKenzie was ultimately convicted of causing dangerous harm and given the maximum seven-year sentence permitted by law. In sentencing, the Magistrate described the victim’s injuries as “cruel and horrific,” noting that Ms. Braynen must live with permanent blindness and severely impaired senses for the rest of her life.
On appeal, McKenzie argued that similar cases had resulted in lighter sentences. However, the Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate has exercised her discretion properly.
Justice Turner, delivering the judgment, wrote: “The learned Magistrate took into consideration that this was the Appellant’s first offence and suggested that the Appellant expressed remorse for her actions. The learned Magistrate’s decision to impose the maximum sentence on the Appellant was reasonable and supported by evidence. While maximum sentences are rare, they are appropriate in the most serious incidents, as in the present matter.”
The Court found the attack to be premeditated, noting evidence that McKenzie had lured the victim to the home under false pretenses, concealed the corrosive substance in a cup, and then armed herself with a weapon after inflicting severe harm.
The Court emphasized that the severity and permanence of Ms. Braynen’s injuries placed the offence among the “most serious incidents” of its kind. Magistrate Brown’s characterization of the case as the “worst of the worst” was, the appellate court noted, a reference to the seriousness of the offence—not to death-penalty jurisprudence.
In the end, the Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the sentence imposed, citing that personal suspicions—especially those later proven baseless—cannot justify acts of intentional, premeditated violence.
McKenzie’s appeal was dismissed, and her seven-year sentence remains in effect.
