Teen killer’s sentence review headed for Appeal Court

THE SENTENCE review of convicted killer Otis Melville may be sent to the Court of Appeal because of its far-reaching consequences. Justice Devan Rampersad, who is hearing the matter in the Port-of-Spain Fifth Criminal Court, yesterday gave State attorney Marlon Sambucharan the undertaking to consult with the DPP to determine if the Court of Appeal should hear the matter instead. The State’s position will be made known on Monday. Rampersad expressed his concern following the evidence of clinical psychologist, Dr Krishna Maharaj, who suggested that the court should not rely on the results of a test conducted on Melville to determine if it would be a risk to reintegrate him into society.

The MPPI 2 test, which Melville had taken on July 6, 2004, concluded that he had character disorder and that he displayed anti-social behaviour. This type of disorder, Maharaj said, would be difficult to treat in Trinidad and Tobago because there was no programme in place to deal with it. When questioned by Melville’s attorney Gerald Ramdeen, Maharaj admitted that the test was not standardised to this country’s population, since it had originated in the US. The doctor said the test result could not stand by itself because there were several other factors to consider.  Maharaj said he was not in a position to conduct any further tests that would predict Melville’s behaviour in the future.

The State is seeking to submit the report into evidence, but, according to Ramdeen, it was not relevant since it could not determine if Melville would be a risk of violence to society. Melville, of Malick, was found guilty of murdering Lenny Beckles in 1996. Because he was 15 years old at the time, he could not be sentenced to death and was instead sentenced by Madame Justice Paula Mae Weekes to incarceration at the President’s Pleasure, according to Section 79 of the Children’s Act.

However, the sentence was quashed by Justice Nolan Bereaux on February 13, 2004, after Melville, through his attorneys Ramdeen and Mark Seepersad, filed a constitutional motion against the State that the sentence under Section 79 of the Children’s Act was inconsistent with Section 5 of the Constitution. The attorneys had argued that Melville should have instead been sentenced at the Court’s Pleasure, with periodical sentence reviews.