Naraynsingh hitman loses appeal

Hired hitman Shawn Parris, who was termed a “dangerous man” and a risk to the safety of the public by trial judge Justice Herbert Volney, lost his appeal yesterday and had his sentence of life imprisonment, not to be released before 30 years, affirmed. The Appeal Court yesterday noted an “alarming lack of social conscience” in the country, fused  with the increasing use of firearms and violent crimes. Parris’ trial attorney, Keith Scotland, was also exonerated of allegations made against him by Parris in the appeal. Parris claimed that Scotland had induced him to plead guilty to manslaughter.

The court also refused two applications by Parris’ appeal lawyer, Sean Cazabon, to admit fresh evidence and to extend the time for leave to appeal against conviction. The court, comprising Justices Margot Warner (president), Ivor Archie and Paula Mae Weekes, also dismissed the appeal against severity of sentence. In a 42-page judgment delivered by Justice Warner, the court stated, “We are bound to say that we agree with the trial judge that a severe sentence which is deterrent in nature is appropriate on the facts of this case. It is a basic principle of sentencing that a maximum sentence is reserved for the most heinous circumstances. In our view, this is one such case. It deserved a severe sentence.

“After a careful assessment of all the facts and circumstances, we therefore conclude that nothing has been proffered which would have affected the fairness of the trial; that the interest of justice has been served and that no miscarriage of justice occurred. The conviction is accordingly safe.” The court also observed that while the murder of Dr Chandra Naraynsingh by Parris might have been his first violent crime, it was premeditated. “He stalked the victim and executed the plan with precision.” Chandra Naraynsingh was shot and killed in her car at the Langmore Health Foundation in Palmyra on June 29, 1994. Parris, disguised as a patient with his arm in a sling, stood in the carpark and waited for Naraynsingh. As she entered the car, he walked up to her and shot her five times at point blank range.

Parris later testified that he had been hired to kill her. He named three persons as the ones who hired him — the deceased’s husband, Dr Vijay Naraynsingh, businessman Elton Ramasir and Vijay Naraynsingh’s present wife, Seeromanie Maharaj-Naraynsingh. Vijay Naraynsingh has since been freed of the charge, but the other two were committed to stand trial. In finding that Volney was guided by the correct sentencing principles, the court said he quite rightly concluded that the heinous nature of the killing required that Parris be appropriately punished. The court also noted that Volney regarded Parris’ plea to the lesser count of manslaughter as a tactical manoeuver to escape the hangman’s noose on a murder conviction.

Dealing with Parris’ allegation against Scotland, the court noted when Parris’ assertion in his affidavit and his evidence before the Court of Appeal are viewed against his conduct in the trial court — insisting that he wanted to plead guilty to manslaughter — “we have no doubt that the plea was not induced by any promise or misrepresentation.” The court also noted that special prosecutor Dana Seetahal had made a valid point as to the unlikelihood of Scotland inducing Parris. The court pointed out that the responsibility of pleading guilty or not guilty is that of the defendant himself, but it is the duty of counsel to assist the defendant in making up his mind by putting forward the “pros and cons” of a plea so as to impress upon the defendant what the result of a particular course will be.