Court of Appeal Reduces Man’s Prison Sentence From 5 Years To 3 Years For Nine Counts Of Obtaining Money By Deception Totalling $18,150

By Alric Lindsay

Today, June 12, 2025, the Hon. Justice Peters read out the reasons for a Court of Appeal judgment reducing the sentence for Garfield Antonio Robb from five years to three years for nine counts of obtaining money by deception in connection with promises to complete hurricane shutter and gutter installation. Robb received a total of KYD 18,150 (reduced to KYD 15,400 after repayments by him).  The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence because the lawyer from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions reportedly failed to bring specific sentencing guidelines to the judge’s attention, which the judge should have considered when sentencing Robb.  The Court of Appeal also quashed a compensation order against Robb. 

Background

According to the judgment, Robb initially faced 13 counts of obtaining money by deception; however, he was acquitted of 4 counts.

Count 1

Regarding Count 1, it was explained that, in May 2014, Robb provided Ms Jackson with a quote of some KYD 3,000 to install hurricane shutters.  Reportedly, Ms Jackson paid the amount in full, was told the shutters would be ordered a week after Robb collected the money, with work to start on the installation later.  The shutters were never installed.

Ms Jackson ultimately received KYD 1,500 after she asked Robb to return her money.

Count 2

In August 2016, Robb quoted KYD 6,000 to install a screened patio at a South Sound address.  The client paid Robb KYD 3,000 upfront.

While Robb delivered some aluminium pieces a few months later, he never completed the work. The client paid another contractor to complete the work.

Count 3

In June 2018, a Mr Bothwell contacted Robb for a quote to install shutters at his address in Rum Point. Robb went on the same day, took measurements and quoted Mr Bothwel KYD 3,300.  Robb requested a deposit since he was travelling to the USA to buy equipment and materials.

Subsequently, Robb gave Mr Bothwell excuses about the shipment of materials. 

Mr Bothwell demanded repayment, and Robb began making a series of payments, except for KYD 600.  Robb then blocked Mr Bothwell’s calls.

Count 4

Concerning Count 4, the judgment said that in 2018, Rob promised someone that he could complete the installation of hurricane shutters at a West Bay address. Robb quoted KYD 4,500, and the client made a 50% deposit.

When the client asked for an update, Robb explained that there were difficulties shipping items from the USA.

Ultimately, Robb completed an installation; however, the client noticed that the work was substandard and the materials appeared to be second-hand.  The client, therefore, requested a refund of his money. Robb never returned the cash.

Count 5

Moving to Count 5, it was explained that, in June 2019, Robb provided Mr Banks with a quote of KYD 2,800 for hurricane shutters for a garage door at his property in Cayman Brac.

Mr Banks gave Robb a sum in US dollars to source materials from the USA.

After Robb was chased, the shutters finally arrived in September 2019. However, Mr Banks noted that the shutters were second-hand, had vital parts missing and were too short for the garage door.

Mr Banks asked for his money back, and Robb agreed to refund him.  However, it is understood that Mr Banks only received part payment.

Count 7

On the next count, Robb provided a lady with a quote of KYD 400 to install hurricane shutters on a commercial property in George Town.

She chased Robb to complete the work but eventually gave up. She never received her money back.

Count 9

Concerning Count 9, Robb quoted a Ms Petrie KYD 2,500 to install hurricane shutters at her address.

After obtaining a 50% deposit, Robb initially did not complete the work.

In October 2020, Robb installed a runner above the double doors, completed no other work and didn’t repay the deposit.

Count 10

In July 2020, Robb visited Mr Moore’s property in Newlands and quoted KYD 4,800 to fit hurricane shutters.

In August 2020, a runner was put up at Mr Moore’s house, and shutter pieces were dropped off. However, it was clear that the materials were second-hand.  No other work was completed.

Count 11

In October 2020, Robb quoted Ms O’Connor KYD 3,000 to install gutters and paint her house. Robb was given a KYD 1,500 deposit.

When Ms O’Connor followed up on the completion of the work, Robb gave excuses for non-completion.

Robb eventually showed up at the house in December 2020, power-washed the house and left. Robb never returned to the property to complete any further work.

When Robb was arrested in March 2021, he denied any wrongdoing.

Appeal against the Grand Court sentence

In the Grand Court, the prosecution argued that a breach of trust had occurred and that there were aggravating factors that may increase Robb’s potential sentence, including a lack of remorse shown by him and the absence of any effort to compensate the victims. 

At the Court of Appeal, Robb’s lawyer reportedly argued that:

**The judge made a mistake in sentencing Robb on the basis that the offending constituted a breach of trust.

**The prosecution failed to bring the judge’s attention to the 2014 sentencing guidelines. Accordingly, the judge failed to consider these guidelines when sentencing Robb

** The judge made a mistake in treating Robb’s lack of remorse as an aggravating factor in arriving at the sentence he passed.

** The judge should not have made a compensation order that Robb repay the victims because it was clear from Robb’s social inquiry report that he was saddled with debt.

Reportedly,  Crown Counsel for the DPP did not challenge the points made by the prosecution.

The judgment added that the Crown Counsel for the DPP was “unable to explain” why the Grand Court judge was not taken to the definitive guidance of 2014 sentencing guidelines.

DPP Crown Counsel appears to have surrendered to the prosecution’s suggestion that Robb should not have received more than 3 years’ imprisonment.

As a result, the Court of Appeal ordered that the Grand Court’s sentence of five years be set aside and replaced with a period of three years.

Share on Facebook

Post on X