Court Imposes 43-month Jail Term On Man & Amends Sexual Harm Prevention Order

By Alric Lindsay

On July 20, 2026, the Summary Court sentenced Ronnie Rodney Ebanks to a total of 43 months’ imprisonment after he was convicted of insulting the modesty of a woman and twice breaching sexual harm prevention orders. The Chief Magistrate also imposed a fresh seven-year sexual harm prevention order and rejected defence submissions that the restrictions on his movements near Seven Mile Beach should be confined to certain hours.

On charge 01012 of 2024, insulting the modesty of a woman, the offence was alleged to have occurred on June 11, 2024 at Ebanks’s premises, where a visiting tenant said he masturbated in her presence while she was alone. Ebanks pleaded not guilty on July 2, 2024, and was later found guilty after trial.

The Chief Magistrate cited the trial magistrate’s finding that Ebanks “attended the complainant’s bedroom dressed in nothing but a towel and then… removed the towel and masturbated in front of the complainant” to insult her modesty and for his “own sexual gratification”.

The Chief Magistrate used an 18-month starting point, increased to 28 months for aggravating factors including two existing sexual harm prevention orders and previous convictions for rape and indecent assault. No plea discount applied following trial; a six-month reduction was allowed for personal mitigation relating to his medical circumstances, producing a sentence of 22 months.

On charge 1960 of 2024, two counts of breaching sexual harm prevention orders, the court heard that, on November 4, 2024, Ebanks was loitering near the Ritz-Carlton and Coral Stone condos for approximately an hour, captured on CCTV.

The Chief Magistrate used a starting point of six months.  She increased it to ten for aggravating factors including being on bail, with a reduced 20% plea discount owing to “overwhelming” CCTV evidence, and a further unspecified discount for personal circumstances producing 4 months’ imprisonment.

On charge 02103 of 2024, also two counts of breaching a sexual harm prevention order, the court heard that Ebanks  entered a woman’s bedroom via a sliding door at around 4:14am; she described him as “strangely calm” and said she was terrified. A basis of plea, accepted by the court, quoted him as saying “when I reached the open door of a bedroom, a lady came towards me from the darkness and asked what I was doing there” and “I regret any upset I might have caused”. The Chief Magistrate took a starting point of two years, adding six months for aggravation, applying a 10% plea discount and a further six months’ personal mitigation, arriving at 21 months.

The 1960 and 02103 sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the 22-month term, which the Chief Magistrate said totalled 43 months.

Before sentencing, it was argued that existing sexual harm prevention orders should be consolidated into a single order rather than left as separate instruments, on the basis that a defendant “cannot be expected” to comply with multiple orders; the court agreed to consolidate them.

Defence counsel James Stenning further submitted that any prevention order restricts liberty and must therefore be “the least required” and proportionate.  Defence counsel  argued that excluding Ebanks entirely from Seven Mile Beach — given the “cultural” significance of beach and sea access to Caymanians — would be disproportionate. He proposed restrictions apply only between certain hours.

Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions opposed this, submitting there was no logical basis for allowing contact with victims’ addresses during daylight when the underlying offences carried no specific time of day, and that conditions prohibiting public sexual acts should remain.

The Chief Magistrate accepted several minor drafting amendments proposed by the defence but rejected the core proposal to limit the order’s hours, stating: “With all the beaches in the Cayman Islands, he’s not being restricted from the beach. He has been specifically restricted from areas where offences have taken place,” adding that previous, more lenient hours had “not acted as a deterrent at all”. She imposed the statutory maximum seven-year order.

Ebanks has a right to appeal.

Note to readers

Insulting the modesty of a woman is contrary to section 133 of the Penal Code. This states:

133. A person who, with intent to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture or exhibits any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

Sexual harm prevention orders are covered under sections 45A to 45G of the Penal Code.