CCJ reduces 23 years jail sentence for Guyanese rape convict

Feb 20, 2022 News

– highlights need for reasons in dispensing sentences

By Rehanna Ramsay

Kaieteur News – The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has reduced the sentence for Guyanese rape convict, Calvin Ramcharran. The CCJ decision rendered Friday outlined that Ramcharran, who was sentenced to 23 years in prison for the rape and assault of a female will now serve 16 years for his crimes.

Rape Convict: Calvin Ramcharran.

The Trinidad- based appellate court noted that the Guyana Appeal Court in its decision ignored an earlier decision which necessitated that reasons should be given when arriving at certain sentences in the sexual offence matter.
The CCJ found that Ramcharran‘s case was devoid of that reasoning.
The man who was represented by attorneys, Nigel Hughes and Ronald J. Daniels had initially appealed the sentence and conviction for rape in the Guyana Court of Appeal but his request was turned down.
In accordance with their decision, Justices of the Guyana Appellate Court ordered Ramcharran “to essentially go back to serving his 23-years jail sentence,” which was imposed on him in the Georgetown High Court by trial judge Jo Ann Barlow in 2015.
In dismissing the request, Chancellor of the Judiciary (Ag), Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, said, the Court found that Ramcharran’s case had no merit as it relates to the grounds of appeal.
According to the Chancellor, the Court disagreed with arguments that Ramcharran’s sentence was severe in all circumstances. Justice Cummings-Edwards noted that “The Court will only interfere if a sentence is found to be manifestly excessive or passed on the wrong principles.”
However, in rendering a decision in the case, Justices of the CCJ disagreed with this notion.
In fact, in a summary judgment read by Justice Denys Barrow, the CCJ bench noted that the decision made by the trial judge to order Ramcharran to 23 years was devoid of reasons for the length of the sentence.
The CCJ Judge explained that“…The Court in a majority judgment found that the sentence for rape was manifestly excessive. The Court found that the trial judge failed to hold a separate sentencing hearing; to take a victim impact statement; to obtain mental health or psychological assessments; to obtain a social report; to give reasons for and to indicate the process used to arrive at the sentence…”
He noted too “while the trial judge did not impose the maximum sentence of life imprisonment, because she gave no reasons for it, [the Guyana Appellate Court and CCJ] could only infer what those reasons were for arriving at the sentence imposed.”
Justice Barrow also noted that the CCJ was therefore satisfied in its decision to reduce the sentence that since the Guyana Appeal Court failed to be guided by the precedent of the judgment given in the case of Pompey versus the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
He explained that “[The Appeal Court] failed to apply the proper objectives to the determination of the issue of sentencing.”
Barrow emphasized, the Court of Appeal in reviewing the sentence, the trial judge erred by failing to follow the comprehensive guidelines given for trial judge in respect to sentences in rape cases as it was rendered in its earlier decision of Pompey against the Director of Public Prosecutions. On that basis, the judge noted that the CCJ was obliged to accede to Ramcharran‘s request to appeal the sentence.
Towards the end of the CCJ hearing, DPP Shalimar Ali- Hack, SC, who represented the State’s case told the CCJ that while she is grateful for its guidance in the terms of rape sentencing, it should be mindful that the custom of local Courts was for judges not to give reasons for sentencing. She requested that formal guidance be given to the Court regarding the fairly new requirement.
“The Chancellor and Chief Justice had arranged formal training for the judges on the day before or on the very day that our written submissions were filed… the judges are now more aware that they have to give reasons and they are doing so but we will have interim period of cases from the old practice… that’s why I respectfully ask for guidance in this issue… ” she said.
In 2015, Ramcharran was found guilty of sexually penetrating a 20-year-old female without her consent. The incident occurred on July 22, 2012. Ramcharran and the victim were at a dance in Soesdyke, when he followed her behind an old house and attacked her.
On the night of the incident, Ramcharran had asked the woman, “Whether she was doing business” and although she told him no, he pursued her and forcefully had sexual intercourse with her.
Following his trial, Ramcharran was convicted of assaulting the woman and causing her actual bodily harm during the commission of the crime. Even after he was sentenced, the man maintained that he was innocent of the crime. However, upon appeal, the CCJ had denied his request to overturn his guilty verdict.