Murder convicts say delay in hearing of appeal breaches constitutional rights

Jan 28, 2020 News

Arguing that a five-year delay in the hearing of an appeal against their conviction and 20-year sentence for murder, is a breach of their constitutional right guaranteed under Article 144 of the Constitution, Joshua Persaud and Raphael Morrison are asking the Court of Appeal to order their release from prison should the court affirm their conviction.

Murdered: Marlon Ramcharran

In 2014, following a trial at the High Court in Georgetown, Morrison and Persaud were found guilty of the June 3, 2013 murder of Marlon Andrew Ramcharran.
Based on previous reports, while armed with a cutlass and pieces of wood, Persaud and Morrison inflicted several wounds on 18-year-old Ramcharran of Tain New Housing Scheme, Corentyne. Reports are that the men were at ‘Dusk Till Dawn Nightclub’ when an argument broke out between them. Ramcharran’s cause of death was given as shock and haemorrhage resulting from multiple incised wounds.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal comprising Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory commenced hearing arguments in the case.
Persaud, 30, and Morrison, 29, are being represented by lawyers Murseline Bacchus and Kim Kyte, respectively. Senior State Counsel Mercedes Glasford is appearing for the prosecution.
Persaud and Morrison were convicted and sentenced on April 17, 2014. According to court records, their Notices of Appeal were filed the same day. Both their lawyers are arguing that the five-year delay in the hearing of their clients’ appeal is a breach of their constitutional rights. To substantiate their argument, both lawyers cited the local case of Mark Fraser vs the DPP.
On 14 November 2007, Fraser was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. After filing an appeal against his conviction, and obtaining bail on 17 December 2007, Fraser never returned to prison. His appeal was then fixed for hearing almost 10 years later, but that hearing was further delayed, as the record of appeal was not made available to his attorneys until 4 October 2017.
While Fraser’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, the Court agreed that the delay in proceedings breached his Article 144(1) right to a fair hearing within reasonable time and stayed any further imprisonment. Fraser then applied to the CCJ for special leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal refusing to set aside his conviction. The CCJ found that there were no special or exceptional circumstances established to justify cancelling the conviction.
There was therefore no proper basis upon which to grant special leave to Fraser and his application was dismissed by the CCJ.
Apart from this, Bacchus is arguing that the trial judge failed to properly put his client’s defence to the jury. The lawyer is contending that the prosecution’s star witnesses gave a statement to the police in which they said certain things that were inconsistent with their testimony. In fact, the lawyer submitted that the inconsistency does not only relate to their credibility but also to the evidence of identification.
Among other things, Bacchus argued that the trial Judge made an error in law when she rejected the no-case submission made by him on behalf of his client. In fact, the lawyer said that the records of appeal do reflect the trial judge providing reasons for rejecting the no-submission. He insisted that reasons must be recorded so that the higher court could consider whether the submission was properly rejected/admitted.
During their trial, Persaud and Morrison had made unsworn statements from the dock, citing their innocence, stating that they knew nothing of Ramcharran’s death. They both mentioned that they went out during the night in question at the ‘Dust Till Dawn Nightclub’. They said they left to go home and ended up in an altercation with some boys from ‘Train Line’.
In sentencing the men to 20 years’ imprisonment, Justice Diana Insanally said that the Human Rights aspect stated that when youths are involved in crime they are not to be punished for their entire life.