Andre Bromfield, the former delivery supervisor who was sentenced to 18 years and five months at hard labour for the murder of his then 24-year-old girlfriend Shantell Whyte just over four years ago, had his sentence reduced by two years and 15 months due to what the Appeal Court said were errors in the approach adopted by the sentencing judge.

Bromfield had pumped five shots into Whyte’s head in a supermarket in Mandeville, Manchester, in December 2019.

Bromfield had pleaded guilty to manslaughter during his first court appearance after the killing. He was sentenced in May 2022.

He will now serve 15 years and seven months imprisonment at hard labour after the Appeal Court deducted the pre-sentence period of two years and five months from the original 18 years and five months.

The footage of the shooting, which was captured on surveillance camera, was widely circulated via traditional and social media platforms.

According to the facts of the case unveiled during the trial, both Bromfield and Whyte, who were employed to MasterMac Food Store in Mandeville, Manchester, were involved in an intimate relationship.

On December 31, 2019, at approximately 6:15 pm, Whyte was seated in the lunchroom of MasterMac Food Store along with another co-worker. Bromfield entered the lunch room and told the co-worker, “Mi a go tell you something weh happen earlier today. Keido come inna the lunchroom and hug har up and kiss har on her cheek.” To which Whyte responded , “A shoulda pon mi lip him kiss me”.

Bromfield then pulled his licensed firearm, fired several shots at Whyte and ran out of the room. Whyte, according to a post-mortem report, died as a result of the injuries, which were noted as cranium cerebral injuries and multiple gunshot wounds to the face.

The following day, January 1, 2020, Bromfield surrendered to the police and, while handing over his firearm along with an empty magazine, said, “Mi nuh know wah come over mi.”

Upon being cautioned he said, “Mi tek up dis girl and give her everything, build her all two-bedroom house, pay off her credit card and mi realise seh she have another man [an auditor]. Mi see di youth a kiss-kiss har up. Mi talk to har and she a diss mi up. Mi just snap.”

In his appeal Bromfield, who was represented by attorney Norman Godfrey, argued that his sentence was harsh, manifestly excessive and cannot be justified. Furthermore he contended that the sentencing judge made several errors and had deprived him of the benefit of a 50 per cent discount based on his guilty plea and instead had only given him 10 per cent.

The Appeal Court said, following its review of the case it had “identified some errors in the approach adopted by the sentencing judge as it related to the steps to be followed in the calculation process, as well as the adjustment for the aggravating factors. We also identified a minor error in her application of the mitigating factors”.

The court therefore ruled that the “ultimate sentence to be imposed would, therefore, be 15 years and seven months”.

The Appeal Court, in noting the treatment by the judge of the mitigating factors in the case, said it had “identified other mitigating factors that were not applied by the sentencing judge to adjust the years to be imposed”.

These, it said, were the expression of remorse by the applicant and his cooperation with the police after the commission of the offence by surrendering himself to custody, in addition to his good antecedent report and good social enquiry report.

“In light of all of the above, we formed the view that the sentencing process should be recommenced as the learned judge erred in principle, in respect of some aspects of the sentencing process,” the Appeal Court said in its ruling.

A mitigating factor is any fact or circumstance that lowers the defendant’s culpability for a criminal offence, thereby resulting in a decreased sentence. Aggravating factors, on the converse, refer to circumstances surrounding a crime that raises the level of severity, thereby resulting in an increased sentence.