Convict in “fowl cock row” murder challenges 66-year jail sentence

Dec 05, 2019 News

---

By Feona Morrison

Businessman Mark Assing’s appeal against his 66-year jail sentence for the 2012 murder of his neighbour, McDoom, East Bank Demerara resident Abiola Eadie, commenced yesterday at the Court of Appeal in Kingston.

The appeal is being heard at the bench of Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud.
Reports indicate that on June 20, 2012, Eadie, her son Martin Barker, 21 and a relative Ayesha George, 33, were shot during an argument involving Assing, who had accused Barker of stealing his “fowl cock”. Following the incident, Eadie was hospitalised, in a vegetative state, and later succumbed to her injuries on July 02, 2012 at the Georgetown Public Hospital. Assing was charged one year after the killing.
Following a trial before Justice Navindra Singh and a jury, Assing, a father of five, was found guilty of the woman’s murder and sentenced to imprisonment.
Justice Singh had ordered that the murder convict would only become eligible for parole after serving 30 years behind bars.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal commenced hearing arguments in the matter.
Lawyer, Glen Hanoman is appearing for Assing, while Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Diana Kaulesar-O’Brien is appearing for the State.
In his Notice of Appeal, Hanoman has raised several issues as it relates to how the trial proceedings were conducted. Among other things, he is arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately put his client’s defence to the jury for consideration. The lawyer accused the trial judge of “trying to destroy the defence’s case” as all he did was flood it with criticism. Hanoman also insists that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the defence of provocation, which arose in the circumstances of this case.

Deeming it a grave misdirection, Hanoman submitted that the trial judge erred when he urged the jury that it had to find Assing guilty of murder, before considering the lesser count of manslaughter. According to the lawyer, during summing up, the trial Judge told the jury that if it finds that Assing intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm to the woman, then he must be found guilty of murder.However, Hanoman argued that the trial judge failed to consider that there is evidence to support that Assing was provoked, not only by Eadie, but by two of her relatives. In the circumstances, the lawyer said that the trial judge erred when he directed the jury to only consider if the actions of Eadie provoked Assing. He said that the Judge also erred when he asked the jury to consider if a reasonable man would resort to shooting someone in the circumstances. This, he said, is not only archaic, but illogical.
In this regard, he added that the trial Judge ought to have directed the jury to consider manslaughter in the first instance, as he believes a provoked man may still intend to unlawfully kill, or cause serious bodily harm to someone.
In his submissions to the Court of Appeal, Assing’s lawyer took issue with the length of time the trial judge spent on recapping the prosecution’s case to the jury.
In fact, he pointed out that the trial judge went through the prosecution’s case verbatim, but failed to do the same thing for his client, who opted to give an unsworn testimony in his defence.
According to Hanoman, of the 20 pages allotted for directions of the prosecution and defence’s cases, only two were used to sum up the defence’s case, which he said was riddled with pointless criticism by the trial judge.
While the Chancellor of the Judiciary reminded Hanoman of the volume of witnesses called by the prosecution, the lawyer was adamant that the trial Judge should have gone through Assing’s unsworn statement verbatim, as it was not lengthy. He said that in relation to his client’s defence, the trial judge selectively told the jury that Assing had denied killing the woman, and that he said it was “Buck Man”, her brother, who shot at him and missed, and the bullet ended up hitting her instead.
Furthermore, Hanoman argued that the trial judge admitted highly prejudicial evidence. That evidence, he added, came from the prosecution’s main witness, Ayesha George who testified that she saw when Assing raised a gun and fired two shots at Martin.
He said that the woman never documented this in her statement to the police.
Although the trial judge conducted a Voir Dire and deemed that George’s evidence as admissible in accordance with the principle of res gestae, Hanoman maintains that it is prejudicial, as it did not come from Martin, himself. The lawyer contended that the judge failed to consider that this evidence came from someone else [George], and that she could have concocted it.
It was previously reported that Assing gave a 48-minute unsworn testimony in which he denied killing the woman.
Speaking from the prisoners’ dock, he had told the court that upon noticing that one of his fowl cocks was injured and blinded in one eye, he began quarreling about the significance of life. Abiola Eadie, he testified, came out of her home, but did not responded to him. He said it was her brother, “Buck Man”, who rushed up and hit him with a gun which went off, shooting Eadie.
Assing claimed that he ran away after the gun went off and “Buck Man” and Barker chased after him. He said that as the men were in pursuit of him, he heard two more gunshots after which he realized that “Buck Man” had also shot Barker.
Assing had told the jury that he sought refuge at relatives in Albouystown, Georgetown, but left for a family home at Canal Number Two, West Bank Demerara, from where he was eventually captured by police.
The Court of Appeal will continue hearing this matter on Thursday, January 23, 2020, when Hanoman will continue presenting arguments. It is also expected that the Prosecutor will commence her arguments then.

---

---