Appeal Court frees Death Row duo

Chief Justice Sat Sharma yesterday criticised the poor quality of evidence being brought to court by police and called for cogent and appropriate forensic investigation to be done in all cases. The CJ made his observation as the Court of Appeal freed Latchman Deosaran and his Guyanese co-accused, who were convicted and sentenced to death for murdering his father over property. The Court found, among other things, that the trial judge had made certain comments to the jury  which in the Court of Appeal’s opinion he should have first raised with counsel in the absence of the jury.

The judge, in summing up the case to the jury,  had referred to two judgments made in two other cases, one of which the said trial judge had presided over,  to clarify statements made by Sgt Godson Andrews during cross-examination at Deo-saran’s trial. However, his references were not evidence before the jury nor had he given any prior indication to counsel of his intention to raise the issue with the jury. The Court of Appeal, comprising CJ Sharma, Justices Roger Hamel-Smith and Stanley John, felt that such statements may have caused prejudice, but insisted that their comments were not a criticism of the trial judge since he was only trying to be fair to both sides in what was a very difficult situation. 

Deosaran and Abdool Rafeek Razack Saheed were charged with murdering Deosaran’s father, Taranath Deosaran, on January 8, 1998. Their Lordships also found that the judge’s directions on the effect of the delay of almost six years in the reporting of the murder by Deosaran’s sister, Kamla Pooran, was inadequate. Pooran  had alleged that her brother had confessed to the killing of their father shortly after the incident, but it was not until some six years later she reported the matter to the police. She gave no explanation as to why she waited so long, except to suggest  at the trial that she was intimidated by her brother. Another ground on which their Lordships found that the trial judge’s directions were limited, was on the issue of oral statements.

The Court of Appeal, within recent times has been very critical of judges not giving robust directions on oral statements allegedly made by accused persons. The Court felt that in the circumstances of the case, the convictions were unsafe. The Court noted the need for persuasive and proper forensic evidence in cases, especially capital ones, observing that if two policemen decide to put their heads together and fabricate an oral statement, it would be almost impossible to disprove it. Hence the need for other kinds of investigative work which will take the shape of forensic investigation. Saheed’s attorneys, Ravi Rajcoomar and Devan Rampersad, told the Court that to order a retrial would be prejudicial to their client, while Margaret Rose, who represented Deosaran, also argued against a retrial. Although Deputy DPP Carla Brown-Antoine had conceded that the convictions were unsafe, she felt that the men could still be retried.