Latest update April 15th, 2025 7:12 AM
Latest News
- 7th oil project likely to cause higher cost-of-living for Guyanese – Exxon study reveals
- ‘Apologise and retract false statements or face litigation’ – Former GECOM Legal Officer tells Chair and CEO
- Conditions at Gaza hospitals ‘beyond description’ after Israeli attacks -WHO
- Teen arrested in connection with murder at Melanie
- Man pretending to be Housing Minister’s father charged with obtaining money by false pretense
Man gets Death Sentence
…accomplice cops plea deal
The first local murder trial that utilized the Plea Bargain Act of 2010 ended yesterday with accused Burt Lancaster being sentenced to death for the April 2006 murder of taxi driver Deonarine Sookdeo by Justice Dawn Gregory.
Despite stringent argument and a constitutional motion by defence attorney Basil Williams, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict after a relatively brief deliberation.
Deonarine’s badly decomposed body was discovered in a remote area off the Soesdyke/Linden Highway days after he went missing.
His car which was stripped of valuable parts had earlier been found in the said area.
Four persons were initially charged for his murder and two were subsequently set free.
The jury based their conclusion on the evidence given by star witness Daywan Kawal called ‘Avinash’ who was initially charged along with Lancaster for the taxi driver’s murder.
Murder accused Daywan Kawal entered a plea bargain and turned chief witness for the state.
However, Kawal pleaded guilty to the lesser count of manslaughter and received a seven year sentence in exchange for his testimony against his co-accused Lancaster called ‘Moses’.
This was shortly after the Plea Bargaining Act was passed in the National Assembly.
Defence counsel for Lancaster, Williams had earlier moved to the High Court seeking a Conservatory Order to halt his trial.
Chief Justice, Ian Chang, had dismissed the application but granted Defence Counsel the right to a constitutional motion to determine whether his client’s constitutional right to a fair trial was contravened by what transpired during a plea bargain arrangement.
Counsel’s contention was that his client, Burt Lancaster, and three others were charged with murder and the offence was “murder or nothing.”
However, at trial, his client found that during a plea bargaining arrangement, of which he was not consulted, two of the accused were freed, and the fourth, Kawal, was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter.
Williams had argued that Kawal, who was given a “light” sentence, had been made a witness for the State in the matter in which he was an accused.
Both Kawal and Lancaster had given caution statements to the police in which they described how the taxi driver was killed.
Answering cross-examination by Attorney-at-Law Williams, Kawal testified that he had given three statements to the prosecution — the first was given in 2006, the second on the same day, and the third was given in 2011 when he benefited from the plea bargaining arrangement.
In his first statement, the witness had said that he and the accused Burt Lancaster, had decided to rob taxi driver Deonarine Sookdeo, but that Lancaster was the one who had knifed Sookdeo in the belly. Kawal however admitted that there was an error in this first statement, and when asked to explain this mistake, he declared that both he and Lancaster had stabbed Sookdeo in the belly, causing him to die.
Kawal admitted that the accused Lancaster, stammered horribly, making it unlikely for him to carry on a conversation in comfort; but he claimed that that does not cause Lancaster much problem.
In answer to lead prosecutor Konyo Sandiford, in her examination in evidence-in-chief, Daywan Kawal revealed how he had agreed with Lancaster to rob the taxi driver and wound him with a knife.
Kawal stood up well to rigorous cross examination which also centered around his motive for entering into the plea deal in exchange for a light sentence.
Kawal had accepted from questions in the cross-examination that it was clear to him that the accused Lancaster would be severely dealt with, and that he was prepared to give evidence against Lancaster because of the benefit he derived from the plea bargain arrangement.
Konyo Sandiford and Diana Kaulesar represented the State in the matter and they responded strongly to the closing submissions made by the defence counsel, swaying the jury in the process.
During the trial, Lancaster had an opportunity to plead to the lesser count of manslaughter but he chose to bite the bullet and seek acquittal on the capital offence.
When asked what he had to say before the sentence was handed down, Lancaster stuttered a bit and appeared to be pretending that he could not speak.
After considering all the evidence Justice Gregory ruled that Lancaster face the gallows.
It is not clear if Lancaster will appeal the verdict.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Of Silk and Steel
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- By the time the first container ship from China—the Liu Lin Hai—steamed into a port... more
Weekend Cartoon
