The Tribune

By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS 

Tribune Staff Reporter 

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

A MAN who shot a woman in her vagina, beat her with a firearm and threatened to kill her and her family has had his prison sentence more than doubled after the Court of Appeal ruled that the original punishment grossly understated the brutality of the crime.

The Court of Appeal increased the sentence of Mike Philius from ten years to 25 imprisonment, finding that the trial judge placed excessive weight on his personal circumstances and failed to properly account for the seriousness of a deliberate firearm attack that left the victim permanently injured.

Philius was convicted of the attempted murder of Jacqueline Similien, who was shot outside her home in August 2021 and now lives with life-altering injuries.

Around 6am on 25 August 2021, Ms Similien was at her residence with her boyfriend when their vehicle alarm sounded. As they went outside to investigate, several men were observed in 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 followed the men in an attempt to obtain their vehicle’s licence plate number, she was set upon by another male who punched her repeatedly.

Philius then produced a firearm and shot Ms Similien in the left pelvic area, with the bullet exiting through her vaginal area, causing her to fall to the ground. While she lay injured, he struck her with the weapon and attempted to fire a second shot, but the firearm jammed. 

The court was told that Philius then threatened to kill Ms Similien and her family if the matter was reported, before fleeing the scene and leaving her bleeding in the roadway.

Ms Similien was hospitalised for 19 days and now requires a urostomy bag to assist with urination as a result of the injuries sustained.

Following his conviction, Philius was sentenced by the trial judge to years’ imprisonment, less time spent on remand.

In arriving at that sentence, the judge relied heavily on a Probation Report and concluded that mitigating factors outweighed aggravating ones. The judge described Philius as a “young man”, a contributing member of society and “ordinarily of good standing”, citing his employment history, family ties and church contributions.

Despite acknowledging the “heinous nature” of the offence and the serious injuries suffered by the victim, the judge concluded that Philius was redeemable and capable of rehabilitation.

However, the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence on the ground that it was unduly lenient, arguing that the judge misdirected herself by overemphasising personal circumstances and failing to give sufficient weight to deterrence and the seriousness of firearm-related violence.

The prosecution further contended that the judge erred in treating Philius as a person of good standing despite his recent drug convictions, which occurred only months before the offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge mischaracterised Philius’s age as a mitigating factor, noting that he was 33 years old at the time of the offence and 36 at sentencing. The court stated that, in the absence of immaturity or reduced culpability, age was a neutral factor and not mitigating.

The Court of Appeal also described the attack as deliberate, sustained and vicious, emphasising that this was not an impulsive or emotionally driven incident.

The judgment highlighted the deliberate use of a firearm, the attempt to fire a second shot, the beating of the victim with the weapon, and the decision to leave her bleeding and helpless in the roadway.

The court found that the offence fell at the upper end of seriousness for attempted murder cases, particularly given the permanent injuries suffered by the victim.

The court reiterated that attempted murder is among the most serious offences known to the criminal law and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment under section 292 of the Penal Code.

The judges warned that sentences which fail to reflect the seriousness of firearm violence risk undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court quashed the sentence, and substituted it with a sentence of 25 imprisonment, beginning from the date of conviction.