Judge’s sentencing policy taken to task -on appeal to murder convictions

Dec 20, 2018 News

“It is arbitrary. (The) figure is not in keeping with the norms of sentencing,” argued defence counsel Sanjeev Datadin, as he addressed the Court of Appeal against a 60-year base policy adapted by Justice Navindra Singh when sentencing those convicted for the capital offence murder.

CONVICTED: Christopher Singh

Datadin is representing Christopher Singh and his friend, Davindra Bushram, both 25, who were convicted and sentenced to 66 and 50 years respectively for murdering a cricket fan some eight years ago. Being displeased with the sentence which was handed down in 2014, the convicts filed an appeal.
On September 11, 2010, they killed Javed Mohamed, 23, following a floodlight cricket match at the Better Hope Community Centre Ground, East Coast Demerara. On the night of the incident, Singh, Bushram and Mohamed were among the spectators at the match when (Singh) and the now deceased got into an argument.
Shortly after midnight the men left the cricket match and they were on the public road where Mohamed was holding a piece of wood in his hand to defend himself from thieves. Singh approached him and drew a knife from under the wrapped T-shirt and started to stab Mohamed, as Bushram reached for the piece of wood which the victim had held and began hitting him with it.
The victim was later picked up from the side of the road and taken to the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) where he was pronounced dead on arrival. A Post Mortem examination revealed that Mohamed had died as a result of haemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab wounds.
Like others who have appealed convictions and lengthy sentences handed down by Justice Singh, Datadin has argued that among other thing, the judge imposed sentences that were excessive and committed several errors when directing the jurors on the law.
Datadin argued that the mathematical formula adapted by Justice Singh is not in keeping with current sentencing practices. In the case of both Singh and Bushram, Justice Singh started at base of 60 years.
For Singh, 10 years were added on for premeditation and four years deducted for time he spent in pre-trial custody—bring his sentence to 66 years. As it relates to Bushram, the Judge deducted four years for the time he spent in pretrial custody and another six years because he did not inflict the fatal wound—making his accumulated sentence 50 years.
According to Datadin, Justice Singh failed to consider that both of his clients were a mere 17 years of age when they allegedly committed the crime. To support this contention, Datadin pointed out that nowhere in the judge’s summation was it mentioned that his clients were juveniles.
The lawyer submitted that if the sentences were to be juxtaposed with guidelines outlined in the Juveniles Offenders Act, then it would be unreasonable. He said the Act states that juveniles should not be placed into the same category as adults as it relates to sentencing since certain factors are to be considered.

Justice Navindra Singh

The lawyer urged the Court that if it is found that the sentences are arbitrary then they cannot stand.
Advancing further arguments, Datadin said that Justice Singh failed to order a probation report for his clients, since one was not requested by their lawyers during the trial, and proceeded to pass sentence immediately after the guilty verdict.
The lawyer implored the possibility that his clients could have been given a lesser sentence if the contents probations reports were adapted by the Court as mitigating factors.
The lawyer is of the view that the 60-year base adapted by Justice Singh defeats what Parliament has done for legislation, while noting that a life sentence should be the most severe custodial penalty. Further, Datadin argued that the felony murder doctrine was incorrectly put the jurors by the Judge.
In some jurisdictions, the rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder, when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender, and also the offender’s accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.
In expounding on this ground, the lawyer said that while the trial judge was satisfied that it was Singh who inflicted the fatal wound; it was not proven that his act was connected to Bushram. Hearing the appeal are Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory.
Following the conviction, Singh spat on his lawyer and took off his tie and threw it at the jury before cursing the policemen who tried to control him.
“I did not kill anybody,” Singh stood and told the court after he was given a chance to speak.
Meanwhile, Bushram implored the court to be lenient with him and give him a second chance. He had claimed that while he was incarcerated he opted to change his life by becoming involved in a lot of religious courses. “Everyone deserves a second chance…People make mistakes in life and they deserve a chance,” he had said.
The matter has been adjourned to January 22, 2019, when Datadin will raise more grounds. Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Dionne McCammon is expected to reply.