Arguments begin in Appeal Court

Dec 02, 2020 News

Man convicted for murder of Mahaica farmer…

Murder accused, Dupaul Singh.

Kaieteur News – Dhupaul Singh, who was convicted for the murder of Mahaica farmer, Balkissoon, is challenging his life sentence, which he received in 2017.

According to documents filed by his attorney, Mark Conway, Singh is asking the Appeal Court to overturn the conviction and sentence, based on claims that the trial Judge, Jo Ann Barlow, erred on a number of pertinent issues, leading up to the verdict of his trial in the High Court.

In his appeal, Singh contends, that the trial judge erred in law in the direction she gave to the jury as regards the issue of provocation – an element to consider in finding someone guilty for manslaughter, and the intention to kill; issues he claimed that the trial Judge failed to put to the jury for the consideration of a verdict in his case.

Murdered farmer, Balkissoon.

The Judges of the Appeal Court in Kingston, Georgetown, yesterday heard the opening arguments of the series of events which led a mixed 12-member jury to unanimously find Singh, called ‘Tailor Man’ guilty of the September 2014 chopping to death of the Mahaica farmer.

The incident which occurred at Helena Number Two, Mahaica, reportedly stemmed from an argument between the two men, following insults which were hurled by Singh about the farmer’s dead wife.

Singh had nonetheless maintained that he was innocent of any crime, even to the end of his trial in the High Court. Justice Barlow had imposed the life sentence on Singh, ordering that he was only to be considered eligible for parole after serving at least 25 years.

Through his lawyer, Conway, the appellant contended that the judge erred by not putting the facts or evidence that may have borne a finding of manslaughter because of provocation to the jury. He noted that the jury was not alerted by the judge of the facts or evidence that they may consider provocation as a deciding factor. Conway contended further that the judge’s summation failed to reflect an adequate summary and analysis of the facts of his case.

According to the lawyer, this should have been presented to the jury for its deliberation as to whether the appellant was provoked by the deceased, even as he advanced that this failure is a material omission which may have deprived the appellant of a verdict of guilty of manslaughter because of provocation.

Reasoning on the issue of severity of the sentence, the lawyer argued on behalf of his client that the sentence imposed does not reflect guidelines or principles laid down in case law. He noted that the judge should have stated that full credit is given for any time spent on remand. As a result, Conway argued that a sentence was rendered which was unjustified and manifestly excessive.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News