The Neesa Gopaul verdict

Aug 21, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – A stunning verdict at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has highlighted, once again, concerns about Guyana’s justice system. In a majority verdict, the CCJ freed a man who was sentenced to 45 years imprisonment and reduced the sentence of his partner, the mother of the murder victim.

The murder was widely reported in Guyana. A young Queen’s College student was reported as missing. Her battered body was later found submerged in a creek. A number of items were found with the body including her bankbook. A pair of dumbbells was also found, presumably to help keep the body sunken.

After investigations, the police charged both the mother and her male partner with the child’s murder. On trial in the High Court both were found guilty. The mother was sentenced to 106 years imprisonment and the male to 96 years. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the convictions were upheld but the sentences of both persons were reduced to 45 years. A further appeal was made to the Caribbean Court of Justice, Guyana’s apex court. The CCJ rendered its verdict last Friday.

Whether justice was served by the CCJ decision of last Friday is being hotly debated in the blogs and in conversations across the country. But justice being served is not simply about finding and punishing the guilty but also about ensuring a fair trial and the quality of the evidence adduced. Justice is not about how people feel about a matter and not entirely about what people know; but what can be proven.

In its majority decision, the CCJ held that the male accused should not have been tried jointly with his partner. After examining the evidence against him, it held that a case had not been made out against the male accused.

The State’s case against the man was based on the three premises. First, that reports had allegedly been made against him about sexual assault of the victim. This presumably was used to suggest that he would have had a motive for the murder. However, the CCJ found that the fact that the reports of sexual assault had been made against the male accused did not prove that he had a motive to commit the murder. It also found that the fact the male accused had said that he knew who killed the schoolgirl did not mean that he did the act.

The second premise was the presence of dumbbells when the body was discovered. The accused was said to be a gym trainer but the Court held that sufficient nexus was not established to link the man to the presence of the dumbbells at the scene where the body was discovered.

The third premise was the statement of the star witness who gave evidence that the mother told her a story which implicated the male accused. The CCJ however held that this evidence was not admissible against the male accused.

It is a principle of common law that if an accused makes an admission it can only be used against the accused and cannot be used against the co-accused.  One of the judges who dissented had some critical comments on this rule, questioning why the use of such evidence would always be considered to be unfair.

The CCJ freed the man on the basis that motive was not proven, a nexus was not established between the two dumbbells found at the scene where the body was found and the accused, and that inadmissible and prejudicial evidence was allowed during the trial.  In the view of the Court, there was a paucity of evidence against the man. The man was therefore freed because of insufficient evidence to link him to the murder.

Interestingly, in respect to the mother, the Court found that certain items discovered at the scene where the body was dumped, was linked the mother to the crime.

 

The majority decision said that it is unarguable that the dumbbells were kept at the mother’s home- so too were the passport, bankbook, and other items found with the body. The Court also referred to other evidence against her including the testimony of the star witness.

As regards the mother, there was a dissenting decision by one of the judges. He had contended that there was simply no evidence against the male accused to secure a conviction. But he argued that it was debatable that the items found with the body could link the mother to the disposal of the body. He also raised questions about the reliability of snitch evidence.

The decision is an interesting one which highlights how much work needs to go into building a case against someone. Those responsible for our law enforcement should carefully study this decision for the lessons it provides for future prosecutions.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

 

 

---

---