Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 29/Sep 18:37

Appeal Court asked to set re-sentencing range for murder

The Court of Appeal has reserved its ruling in a landmark case that could, for the first time, establish a sentencing range for murder in cases where the death penalty can no longer be imposed in Trinidad and Tobago. Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Maria Wilson and Ricky Rahim heard arguments on whether courts should adopt a 30- to 60-year framework for specific intent murder last week. The appeals were brought by Freyad Edoo and Rawle Ghany, who were convicted in 1999 for the murders of businessman Rajpaul Dass and his sister-in-law, Susan Ramnath. Initially sentenced to death, their punishments were commuted to life in prison under the Pratt and Morgan precedent, which limits the time prisoners can remain on death row. In 2023, the Privy Council declared mandatory life sentences unconstitutional, prompting the High Court to reconsider the prison terms of those affected. In January 2024, Justice Gail Gonzales resentenced both men. Edoo received two concurrent life sentences with a minimum of 12 years, while Ghany was ordered to serve concurrent life sentences with a minimum of five years before eligibility for release. Two others, Amir Mohammed and Parbatee Dass, who were convicted only of Dass’s murder, were ordered released. At the appeal, the men’s attorney, Peter Carter, argued that the trial judge erred by imposing life sentences on his clients despite strong evidence of rehabilitation during their 26 years in custody. He submitted that life terms should be reserved for offenders who present an ongoing danger to society. Carter also challenged the judge’s decision to fix a 40-year starting point for their minimum terms, calling it excessive and inconsistent with Caribbean practice. He urged the Court of Appeal to consider the approach used in England, where minimum terms are set at one-half to two-thirds of a commensurate determinate sentence, with remission for good behaviour factored in. Under such a framework, Carter suggested a 25-year minimum would have been proportionate. He further contended that the trial judge failed to apply the “totality principle” by not stepping back to assess whether the aggregate sentences were proportionate. He highlighted sentencing disparity with co-accused Amir Mohammed, who received a 30-year starting point for the same murder. However, Special prosecutor Wayne Rajbansie maintained that the murders were sufficiently brutal to warrant life sentences, though not the “worst of the worst” that would justify whole-life imprisonment. Dass was the target of a contract killing, and Ramnath, who witnessed the attack, was murdered to silence her. Both victims sustained multiple chop wounds, with injuries described as particularly violent. Rajbansie pointed to sentencing norms in the Bahamas, where courts impose life with a minimum term of 30 to 60 years for similar crimes. He said Gonzales properly considered differences in prison conduct between Edoo and Ghany, with Ghany showing marked reform and Edoo demonstrating little engagement with rehabilitation programmes. He rejected Carter’s argument that constitutional breaches, such as years spent on death row and failure to review their life sentences, should reduce their punishment, insisting those issues belonged in separate constitutional proceedings. The judges acknowledged the case’s importance, noting it was the first opportunity to set a clear methodology for resentencing murder cases. Rajbansie cautioned against adapting the approaches of the courts in England, Canada or Australia, which, he submitted, would be unsuitable without the legislative support. He urged the Appeal Court to heed the warning of the Privy Council, noting that any framework must be practical for judges in TT, using local knowledge and considering the local climate. He said the High Court Criminal Division was entrusted with carrying out the resentencing hearing, which did not deprive the appellants from approaching the High Court Civil Division for constitutional relief for breaches of their constitutional rights. Rajbansie also stressed that the resentencing judge does not have to consider the constitutional rights infringement in arriving at a final sentence. The award for breach of a constitutional right may be a declaration or an award of compensation, Rajbansie submitted. Among the issues the Appeal Court must decide are whether rehabilitation evidenced in prison should lessen the weight of life terms, how to determine minimum terms in murder cases, and whether constitutional violations can be addressed in a resentencing hearing. The post Appeal Court asked to set re-sentencing range for murder appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.