Grandfather killed after eating luncheon meat

Downes later admitted he killed the elderly man because he had eaten his luncheon meat.

These were part of the facts outlined by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Alliston Seale, SC, when Downes appeared in the No 4 Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Downes, of Rose Hill, St Peter, had pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing retired lawman Grenville ‘Floats’ Cumberbatch, also of Rose Hill, on June 16, 2021. He was originally accused of murdering the man but denied that count.

He was represented by attorney Safiya Moore, who requested a presentencing report and a behavioural report from Dodds Prison.

Justice Laurie-Ann Smith-Bovell adjourned the matter until September 18.

Seale explained that the State had accepted the plea to the lesser count on the basis of provocation.

“I always like to put in this part because I think families should understand, because when we lose loved ones, we want ‘that was murder’, but the law recognises certain things so in those circumstances, on the basis of the issue of provocation, that is why the State accepted the plea.

“Sometimes the average person may not understand and believes that it should be murder. Yes, we recognise that the injuries were many. It was a gruesome act. [Downes] had very few injuries while his grandfather suffered severe injuries and some people may even look at the disrespect that you would raise your hand against your grandfather. But none of these things amount to murder in law,” the Senior Counsel said.

“It is a specific definition and we are looking at it from the basis of provocation. The Offences Against The Person Act recognises the issue of provocation – things said or done by a deceased person that causes the accused to react in a particular manner,” he told the court.

“It was evidenced by him that his grandfather ate his luncheon meat and then gave him attitude in the sense that he didn’t even respond to him. There was evidence that he threw a plate at him.

“Regardless of how we feel about that, there is no evidence to the contrary. This was something that happened in the privacy of the home so I cannot contradict it by any other witness, any other evidence. So regardless of whether we believe it was a fanciful excuse or otherwise, I am bound to operate under the law.”

The DPP said Cumberbatch’s body was discovered in the yard by his common-law wife on her return to the home they shared with Downes. She had seen his car parked out front but, when she looked inside, did not see the former policeman in his usual chair reading his newspaper.

She entered the house, feeling that something was “unusual”, noticed drops of blood on the floor and, after following them to the back step, discovered Cumberbatch’s body.

Not knowing if he was dead, she called her neighbour for help.

Then, said Seale, in “a classic case of the killer returning to the scene”, Downes arrived and acted as though that was the first time he was there.

But a lawman noticed a drop of blood on his ear and asked him about it.

Downes told him he had been in a fight the previous night. However, the lawman told Downes he believed the blood was from the deceased and arrested him.

The lawman later discovered blood on his clothes and scratches on his hands.

When interviewed, Downes initially gave a movement statement in which he said he examined his grandfather’s body and saw “blood spouting from his neck”.

He said he told the woman that “Grenville like he was in a fight and he like he gine dead”.

Police, however, found inconsistencies in his statement and reinterviewed him.

They asked him if he was responsible for Cumberbatch’s death and Downes replied ‘yes’.

(HLE)