Appeal Court reduces jail sentence for Neesa Gopaul killers

Sep 01, 2021 News

---

– Mother, ex-lover now to serve 45 years each in prison

Kaieteur News – The Court of Appeal yesterday upheld the guilty verdict for Bibi Sharima Gopaul and her former lover, Jarvis ‘Barry’ Small, in relation to the murder of her 16-year-old daughter, Neesa Gopaul.

The Appeal Court bench led by Chancellor of the Judiciary (Ag) Justice, Yonette Cummings-Edwards, Justices of Appeal, Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory, delivered the ruling on the duo’s application to have their conviction and combined 206 years jail sentence set aside.
While the Court found no reason upon which their conviction could be set aside, it held that Trial Judge, Navindra Singh, erred in imposing the lengthy jail sentences. As such, the court substituted the 106 years jail sentence handed to Gopaul, 50, and the 96 years jail sentence imposed on her younger ex-lover, Small, to 45 years imprisonment each.
Additionally, the murder convicts were given no credit for time spent in pre-trial custody given the aggravating circumstances in the case. Rather, Justice, Cummings-Edwards, underscored the gruesome manner in which the victim who was only 16 when she met her demise, this included the extent of the injuries she received, the manner in which her body was disposed of and the fact that she was killed by persons close to her.
On October 2, 2010, the partially decomposed body of the teenager who attended Queen’s College was found stuffed into a suitcase, which was anchored in a creek with several dumbbells at the Emerald Tower Resort at Madewini, Linden-Soesdyke Highway.
Reports indicated that a rope had been wrapped around the suitcase, and dumbbells were attached at one end, apparently in an effort to keep the body underwater. The head of the then unidentified body had been bashed in that 50% of it was gone when the corpse was recovered and examined. Along with the body, a passport bearing the name, Neesa Lalita Gopaul, was found. Subsequent to the discovery of the body, teenager was reported missing.
Investigators later traced the information back to the home of the missing teen and days later her mother, Bibi, and Small were arrested and charged with murder.
Following a trial before Justice Singh in the High Court in 2016, Gopaul and Small were found unanimously guilty of the teen’s killing by a 12-member jury. The judge had imposed the lengthy jail terms on the duo, who later appealed the judgment.
Throughout the appeal hearing, Small was represented by Attorneys-at-law Nigel Hughes, Ronald Daniels, and Sophia Findlay, while Gopaul is represented by attorney-at-Law Arud Gossai. The State is represented by Prosecutor Stacy Goodings.In the appeal, the lawyers arguing on behalf of Gopaul and her former lover have raised contentions over what they term as prejudicial evidence led in the trial against their clients.

Attorneys for both Gopaul and Small claimed that the trial judge erred and misdirected the jury on several issues brought out in the trial including the evidence led by the prosecution’s alleged star witness, Simone De Nobrega, who shared a lockup cell with Gopaul.Convicted, Jarvis ‘Barry’ SmallAs it regards the issue of severity, the lawyers also relied heavily on a previous decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
In delivering the ruling yesterday, the Chancellor inter alia, dismissed the arguments of the convicts’ attorneys, that the evidence led by the prosecution’s key witness, Simone De Nobrega, was inadmissible and prejudicial against their clients.
De Nobrega, the prosecution’s star witness had been in the lockups with Gopaul; she was there on several fraud-related charges and obtained a testimony from Gopaul on the murder of her daughter.
The lawyers had argued that De Nobrega’s evidence could not be trusted given that she had issues with the law.
Additionally, they held that the duo should have been given separate trials, given that De Nobrega testimony was based solely an alleged confession Gopaul made to her while they were in the lockups together.
However, the Chancellor disagreed with this contention. Instead, she noted that the circumstances of the case were interwoven and the severing of the indictment would not have been possible or necessary.
“We believe that the trial judge gave the appropriate directions as it regards the evidence of Ms. De Nobrega … the trial judge has the discretion whether to warn the jury of the tainted evidence of a witness…” Justice Cummings-Edwards said.
Further, as it relates to fairness, the Chancellor said that the evidence against the duo was admissible; noting that the Appeal Court did not find that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice in the case.
However, in relation the severity of the sentence, the Appeal Court found that the trial judge did err in his consideration when he imposed the jail sentences.
Considering that the sentence was excessive, the Chancellor said that the trial judge should have at least given a reason for lengthy prison terms.
In this regard, the judge noted that Appeal Court will accede to the request for a reduction.

 

---

---