Appeal Court calls for consecutive sentences

“Today in this country, murder is an everyday occurrence. Life is no longer considered sacred, and innocent lives are snuffed out with little or no remorse,” lamented Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma. The statement came from a written judgment delivered yesterday, in which the CJ also stated that the Court of Appeal, “was of the view that in cases where violence is used, courts should be invited to depart from the principle of concurrent sentences and impose consecutive sentences.”

In the five-page judgment, the court, comprising CJ Sharma, Justices Roger Hamel-Smith and Stanley John, noted that in a 1999 Court of Appeal judgment, the view was expressed that a life sentence generally  amounted to 15 years. However, the CJ  added: “That view appears to have been overtaken by subsequent events, or at least is no longer a viable proposition today, moreso when an accused person, with so many previous convictions, some involving violence, commits such a serious offence against a helpless woman.” The court was dealing with the appeal of Allan Ramdass, who had robbed, raped and killed 78-year-old Beulah Farrell at her Manahambre Road home in Princes Town on December 14, 2000. Ramdass pleaded guilty to the lesser count of manslaughter, but claimed at a point in time that he was under the influence of drugs. Ramdass’ appeal was argued by attorney Devan Rampersad, while Dana Seetahal represented the State.

The court also advised that “when a trial judge indicates to counsel what inferences he intends to draw and invites him to consider a “Newton hearing,” if he does not agree, then counsel for the accused is under a duty to be unequivocal in whatever stand he takes. He cannot be allowed to play fast and loose. If the issue requires resolution, he must say so rather than hide behind ambiguous language that may leave the court with the impression that his client has conceded the issue.” During the arguments of the appeal, the court had cause to express concern about defence counsel’s behaviour at the trial in dealing with a suggestion by the trial for a “Newton” hearing to settle the unresolved facts of whether or not Ramdass had sexual intercourse with Farrell.

At one point, Ramdass said he did not, but later said he may have, but was under the influence of drugs. Concluding, CJ Sharma observed that Ramdass was “fortunate that his guilty plea to the lesser offence of manslaughter was accepted.” Ramdass was sentenced to 15 years hard labour by Justice Alice York Soo-Hon, to follow a ten- year sentenced he was serving for housebreaking and larceny. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not too severe in the circumstances, given the extent of the violence used and Ramdass’ several previous convictions.