Latest update February 7th, 2025 2:57 PM
Latest News
- AFC Leader Nigel Hughes welcomes any investigation into lands he acquired
- Pres. Ali defends Jagdeo’s attacks on critics
- VP Jagdeo tries to compare 75 acres of jungle lands Nigel Hughes wants to acquire with 35 acres of prime city lands sold to Ed Ahmad and others
- Greaves tells Govt ‘clean money’ used to acquire New York properties- Jagdeo
- Trump says Israel would hand Gaza to the US after fighting is over
Alleged killer withdraws guilty plea
Attorney-at-law Siand Dhurjon (left) conversing with his client Phillip Sutherland on the courthouse corridors
Phillip Sutherland, who had earlier this month confessed to killing Martin Roberts during a drunken row in the Rupununi in 2014, has withdrawn his guilty plea to the lesser offence manslaughter.
On March 6, Sutherland was formerly indicted before a jury for murder. He, however, opted to plead guilty to the lesser offence, accepting that he unlawfully killed Roberts on January 9, 2014.
His sentencing was, however, deferred to yesterday to facilitate the presentation of a probation report, which was requested by his Attorney-at-law, Siand Dhurjon.
The state is being represented by Prosecutor Mandel Moore and Lisa Cave. The defence is contending that a drunken Sutherland had been engaged in a fight with another person when Roberts was caught in the midst.
Yesterday, Sutherland’s Attorney-at-law made an application before Justice James Bovell-Drake to have his client’s premature guilty plea vacated. Citing that his client resided in the interior, Dhurjon told the court that due to the “simplicity” of his client’s lifestyle, he felt pressured to do what was necessary to get an early release date.
According to the lawyer, Sutherland also decided to enter a guilty plea because of his unfamiliarity with court proceedings. Further, Dhurjon disclosed that at his client’s initial hearing, he was not in possession of the deposition for the case file, and as such, was unable to advise his client accordingly.
The lawyer added that after perusing the depositions, he believes that another suspect should have been arrested for the killing. In support of his application to have the guilty plea withdrawn, Dhurjon cited several cases. One such cases is that of S (An Infant) v Recorder of Manchester (1971) 1 AC 481, HL.
In this case, the House of Lords confirmed that it has long been the law that when a man pleads guilty to an indictment the trial judge can permit him to change his plea to not guilty at any time before the case is finally disposed of by sentencing or otherwise.
According to Commonwealth Caribbean Criminal Practice and Procedure Third Edition, The House also held that a summary court had similar discretion. “In R v Richards (1992) 41 WIR 263, PC, the Privy Council in considering a case from Jamaica followed S (An Infant) on this point. Even though the court may allow a withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentence, it should exercise this discretion with care if the defendant did not really understand to what he was pleading or if his explanation renders the plea equivocal, the plea will amount to nullity.”
The paragraph continues, “If the plea of guilty is entered as a result of a mistake or an improper understanding by counsel of the defendant’s instructions, the court should allow the change of plea.” The lawyer also made reference to the case of Beswick v R (1987) 36 WIR 318, PC.
In this Jamaican case a defendant was allowed to plead guilty to a minor traffic offence. The Magistrate sentenced him, but subsequently ordered that summons should be reissued, effectively deeming that his sentencing was null and void. The Privy Council then held that once a Magistrate had validly sentenced the defendant, he was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to order a subsequent reopening of the same case. Justice Bovell-Drake had no objections to the accused withdrawing the guilty plea.
As such, Sutherland, who has pleaded not guilty to murder, will be afforded a trial at the next practicable sitting of the Demerara Assizes, according to Justice Drakes. Counsel for the accused, however, had wanted his client to go on trial thereafter the withdrawal.
According to Dhurjon, Section 144 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act states, “If the accused person pleads not guilty, he shall thereby without any further form, be deemed to have put himself upon the country for trial, and the Court shall order a jury for his trial accordingly.”
However, Justice Bovell-Drakes said that the court could have commenced with trial immediately since this session of the Demerara criminal assizes is almost at an end. The judge informed the alleged killer that he will be contacted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in relation to a date for commencement of his trial at the High Court in Georgetown.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
What Guyanese leaders can learn from Donald Trump
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News-There is little dispute that Donald Trump knows how to make an entrance. He does so without... more
OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Weekend Cartoon
