Defence in murder conviction points to discrepancies in testimonies

Dec 12, 2018 News

Arguments of discrepancies and inconsistencies were raised when the Court of Appeal commenced hearing the case of the State vs Lloyd Rampersaud who was convicted and sentenced to 70 years imprisonment for the February 2009 murder of Munilall Mangru.

CONVICTED KILLER: Lloyd Rampersaud

Based on reports, Mangru, 42, a grass cutter, was found dead under a bridge linking Mon Repos and Triumph, East Coast Demerara. It is alleged that he was beaten and left to die.
Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence handed down by Justice Navindra Singh in 2013, Rampersaud, through his Attorney-at-Law George Thomas, appealed same.
In the grounds of appeal, Thomas argued (i) That the Learned Trial Judge erred in law in directing the jury on joint enterprise, (ii) That the learned Trial Judge erred in law on parties to offences and their liability, (iii) That the learned Trial Judge erred in law in admitting the caution statement of the Appellant (Rampersaud) and (iv) that the sentence was unduly severe.
On Monday, The Court of Appeal commenced hearing arguments in the case during which Thomas outlined the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of two State witnesses casting doubt on his client’s conviction. Rampersaud and his brother were jointly charged with the murder of Munilall which occurred between February 22 and February 24, 2009 in the county of Demerara.
However, only Rampersaud was convicted; his brother was acquitted by the jury. In his submission, Thomas argued that he observed major inconsistencies in the evidence of a man called ‘Towley’, who was also charged but had the matter discontinued against him by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and that of the sister of the deceased.
Supporting his argument, Thomas said that ‘Towley’ testified that the incident occurred on February 21, 2009, though the murdered man’s sister testified to seeing her brother looking normal the next day. According to the lawyer, the dead man’s sister only testified to seeing her brother with marks of violence to his face and other parts of his body on February 24, 2009.

MURDERED: Munilall Mangru

In this regard, Thomas argued that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jurors on how to consider this evidence. Thomas contended that from the time ‘Towley’ said the incident occurred to the time Munilall was seen (the next day) by his sister, there is a possibility that Munilall could have been injured by someone else.
As such, Thomas urged that his client should not be held liable for the fatal injuries that were inflicted on Mangru.
Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Yonette Cummings-Edwards, who is hearing the appeal together with Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud, agreed that Thomas pointed to some “major discrepancies.”
Senior State Counsel Teshanna Lake contended that Rampersaud admitted to his role in a caution statements that were admitted into evidence by the trial judge. “Me lash he with a piece of wood on he face and me see he tongue come out. Towley then cuff he up pon he face and me then tek out all he money,” Lake said Rampersaud admitted in his caution statement
Lake said that during the trial a pathologist testified that the injuries Rampersaud sustained were consistent with those Rampersaud said he inflicted on him. The Prosecutor maintained that Munilall was injured on February 21, 2009, noting that the Pathologist explained that a normal person receiving injuries such as those inflicted on Mangru would have died within four minutes.
But the Chancellor questioned what if Munilall was abnormal. Nevertheless, Thomas is asking for the conviction and sentence to be set aside and/or reversed. The Court of Appeal has reserved its ruling in this matter. Notices for decision will be sent to the parties.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News