Appeal Court rules 70 years’ sentence for murder unduly harsh -convicted killer to now serve only 30 years

May 25, 2019 News

The Court of Appeal has reduced a 70-year prison sentence for Lloyd Rampersaud who was found guilty in 2013 for the murder of Munilall Mangru in February 2009.
In a ruling issued yesterday, a panel of appellate judges upheld Rampersaud’s guilty verdict, but discarded the decision of trial Judge Navindra Singh who had imposed the 70-year jail term which they declared was “unduly harsh.”
The court, instead, sentenced Rampersaud to serve 30 years imprisonment for the crime which he committed more than a decade ago. Following the conviction and sentence, Rampersaud through his lawyer George Thomas appealed.
In allowing the appeal, Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory said that, among other things, Justice Singh should have considered mitigating factors in favour of Rampersaud in arriving at a sentence.
Though Rampersaud was charged at a time when the death penalty was the mandatory punishment for murder, Justice Singh had discretion and, instead imposed a term of 70 years imprisonment.
But the Court of Appeal held that the sentence was still too harsh. 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. Last year December, Thomas and Senior State Prosecutor Teshanna Lake presented argument for and against the appeal.
Thomas argued that there were several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence during trial stage at the High Court in Georgetown. In his grounds of appeal, the lawyer contended that (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.
Lake, on the other hand, argued that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that Rampersaud admitted to his role in the killing in a caution statement that was 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.
In ruling that the caution statement was properly admitted as evidence, the Court of Appeal said that the trial judge would have conducted a voir dire (trial within a trial) to test its voluntariness.
Thomas had outlined the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of two State witnesses casting doubt on his client’s conviction.
Supporting his argument, Thomas said that a man called ‘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.
In this regard, Thomas had argued that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jurors on how to consider this evidence. Thomas had 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.
However, Lake had submitted that during the trial a pathologist testified that the injuries Mangru sustained were consistent with those Rampersaud said he inflicted on him. The Prosecutor maintained that Mangru 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.
Then, the Chancellor questioned what if Munilall was abnormal. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal in its ruling said that the trial judge gave proper directions to the jury as it relates to the medical evidence given by the pathologist. The court, however, said that the judge could have given further directions.
Rampersaud and his brother Roy Patrick 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.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News