Frankie Boodram freed by Appeal Court

Ace racing car driver and businessman Frankie Boodram was freed yesterday by the Court of Appeal. Boodram openly wept in the docks when the Court quashed his conviction of receiving stolen vehicle parts and set aside the five-year sentence imposed on him by Justice Paula Mae Weekes. He had spent just under a year in prison awaiting his appeal. In freeing Boodram, the Court, comprising Chief Justice Sat Sharma, Justices Lionel Jones and Margot Warner, also set down some guidelines for police to follow when oral statements are made by suspects. Both Boodram and his wife Jasmine gave praise to God as they left the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain yesterday. Boodram, who was greeted by his son Franklyn, daughter Charlene, grandson Frankie and other relatives, said his first stop is Mount St Benedict, where he is going to give praise to God. 

The Court did not order a retrial after the Sate conceded that the evidence against Boodram was  tenuous and in the interest of justice, there should not be a retrial. Justice Sharma then indicated that “they too” were of the view that the evidence was weak and if retried a jury could reach a perverse verdict. Three grounds of appeal raised by Vernon De Lima seemed to have clinched the case for Boodram. One was the alleged oral statement made by Boodram and the failure of the trial judge to give a robust direction on that issue. The other was the poor identification of the parts by its owner Clint Batchasingh, and the third was the judge’s failure to direct the jury on the issue that Boodram had denied receiving the goods, indicating that his son was responsible for the day-to-day running of the business. The CJ said they were very  concerned with the practice by police officers, which has been taking place over the past 15 to 20 years, where the police seek to get convictions on verbals.

He  recalled that over this period, there has been a sharp rise in police cases being mounted on oral statements, and that it was very easy to put words in another person’s  mouth — fabricating a verbal. And without proper and contemporaneous corroboration, he warned, it would be dangerous to convict. Also, he cautioned, there must be robust directions on the dangers of such evidence when uncorroborated. The CJ suggested that in the future, police officers must write down these utterances in their pocket and or desk diary and also in the station diary, endorsed by a senior officer. While making this point, the CJ observed that at the trial defence attorney Israel Khan SC had vagariously cross-examined the police on the oral confession and had even suggested that it was fabricated. But the judge did not warn the jury that it was dangerous to accept oral confession without support.

Assistant DPP Roger Gaspard was proficiently responding to eight grounds of appeal file on behalf of Boodram, but admitted to the court that he could go no further when confronted with the ground on the oral statements. Gaspard, who was addressing the court on whether there should be a retrial, said that having regard to the quality of the evidence he is inclined to agree with de Lima that, not only was the evidence weak, but the identification of the parts was not strong. And further, having other considerations, the case for the State can hardly improve on the evidence and is unlikely to reach any high level. He submitted that there should be no retrial. The court commended Gaspard on the stance he took, noting that he had made some solid points. The court will give a written judgment at a later date. De Lima, Joseph Pantor, Sophia Chote, Rajiv Persad and Faraz Mohammed appeared for Boodram. Boodram was charged with stealing Batchasingh’s van from Alexandra Street, St Clair, on April 22, 2000, and receiving stolen parts from that van. The jury freed him on the larceny count but in an eight/one majority decision, he was found guilty of receiving on February 26, 2003, and sentenced to five years by Justice Weekes.