Murder accused opting for lesser count, silent rape victims dominate April sessions

Jun 04, 2016 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

---

The pattern of murder accused opting for the lesser plea of manslaughter, and underage rape victims preferring not to testify, continued in the April 2016 Criminal Assizes which ended on May 27, last.

In 12 murder trials completed during the April Assizes, seven of the accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and received sentences ranging from eight to 15 years’ imprisonment.
Of the nine completed cases involving the carnal knowledge or rape of minors, the accused were all freed after the victims refused to testify.
The cases were presented before Justice Navindra Singh, Madam Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry and Madam Justice Jo-Ann Barlow.
Of the 163 cases listed to be heard, 58 were disposed of, with 31 being presented in the High Court of Demerara.
Twenty-seven matters were nolle prosequi in writing by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Of the 31 matters that were presented in the High Court, there were nine guilty pleas, three guilty verdicts by Jury, eight not guilty verdicts by Jury, eight formal verdicts of not guilty, two hung Jury and one case was withdrawn by the trial Judge.
Justice Navindra Singh completed sixteen 16 matters; one for the offence of manslaughter, one for sexual activity with a child family member, two for attempt to commit murder, six for the offence of murder, three for the offence of carnal knowledge of girl under 15, one for the offence of rape and two for the offence of rape of a child under 16.
In the one matter for the offence of manslaughter, the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.
ln the one matter for the offence of Sexual Activity with a child family member, the accused was found guilty by Jury and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.
In one of the two cases for the offence of attempt to commit murder, the virtual complainant testified that he no longer wanted to proceed with the matter and caused the
trial Judge to direct the Jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty.
In the other case of attempting to commit murder, the accused pleaded guilty to the alternative count of causing grievous bodily
harm and was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
In one of the six matters for the offence of murder, the trial Judge upheld a no case submission and directed the Jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty.
In the other five murder trials, all the accused pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter and were sentenced respectively to eight years’, nine years’, 14 years’ and 15 years’ imprisonment by Justice Navindra Singh.
In two of these five matters the accused were each sentenced to eight years.
In the three matters for the offence of carnal knowledge of girl under 15 years, the complainants testified that they did not wish to proceed with the evidence and caused Justice Singh to direct the Jurors to return formal verdicts of not guilty.
In the one case for the offence of rape, the trial Judge upheld a no case submission and directed the Jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty.
In the two separate cases for the offence of rape of a child under 16, both accused were acquitted after the Jury returned not guilty verdicts.
Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry completed seven matters; two were for the offence of carnal knowledge of girl between 15 and 16, two for murder, one for the offence of rape of a child under 16. There were two matters for the offence of manslaughter.
In one of the two cases for the offence of carnal knowledge of girl between 15 and 16, the accused was acquitted after the Jury returned a majority verdict of not guilty.
In the other case, the complainant testified that she did not wish to proceed with the evidence and caused the trial Judge, Justice Beharry, to direct the Jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty.
In one of the two murder cases, the Jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty for the accused. In the one other case, the Jury failed to reach a verdict and the accused was remanded back to prison to await a new trial.
The accused in the trial for the offence of rape of a child under 16 was acquitted after the Jury
returned a not guilty verdict.
The accused in the two separate matters for the offence of manslaughter were both acquitted.
Justice Jo-Ann Barlow completed eight matters; five for the offence of murder, one for wounding with intent, one for the offence of rape of a child under 16 and one for the offence of rape.
In one of the five murder cases, Justice Barlow sentenced the accused to life imprisonment after the Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty. This prisoner becomes eligible for parole after he would have served 25 years in jail.
In two other murder trials, the accused both pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter and were respectively sentenced to 13 years imprisonment and 14 years 9 months imprisonment.
In another murder trial, the accused will have to await a new trial because the Jury failed to reach a verdict. In one other murder trial in which two accused were indicted, the number one accused was acquitted by the jury.
The number two accused was unanimously found guilty by the Jury and sentenced at the Court’s pleasure.
Trial Judge Jo-Ann Barlow ordered that he undergoes counselling and to participate in academic classes in prison. This prisoner will be evaluated in April 2018.
The case for the offence of wounding with intent was withdrawn from the Jury by Justice Jo-Ann Barlow after the caution statement which was admitted into evidence revealed the accused acted in self-defence. The Jury was then directed by the trial Judge to return a formal verdict of not guilty.
In the one matter for the offence of rape of a child under 16, the victim informed the Court that she did not wish to proceed with the matter and the trial Judge directed the Jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty.
The accused in the one matter for the offence of rape was acquitted by the Jury.
Twenty-seven matters were nolle prosequi by the DPP. Of these 27 matters, five were for the offence of rape, three matters for the offence of murder, six for manslaughter, two rape of a child under 16, two for the offence of buggery, one for carnal knowledge of a girl under 15 and one matter each for the offences of sexual activity with a child family member, fraudulent misappropriation, obtaining by false pretence, causing death by dangerous driving, break and enter and larceny, wounding with intent to commit murder, throwing noxious substance and carnal knowledge of girl between 15 and 16 years.
In 18 cases for the offences of rape, murder, manslaughter, buggery, fraudulent
misappropriation, obtaining by false pretence, causing death by dangerous driving, break and enter and larceny and wounding with intent to commit murder the main witnesses could not be located.
These were all old cases which were committed more than ten years ago.
Another nine cases were nolle prosequi for the offences of sexual activity with a child family member, wounding with intent to commit murder, rape of a child under 16 years, throwing noxious substance, rape and carnal knowledge of a girl under 15 years because the VC’s indicated in writing that they did not wish to proceed with their matters.

---

---