Killer moves to duck death sentence

CONVICTED killer David John Pierre yesterday had his death sentence vacated by the Court of Appeal, which ordered his case be remitted to a High Court Judge for sentencing in light of the Balkissoon Roodal Privy Council ruling that the death sentence was no longer mandatory. The ruling  means that the trial judge can now decide the fate of guilty killers, and that the death sentence cannot be automatically handed down on anyone as was done under Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1925. In September, the Port-of-Spain Court of Appeal, comprising of Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, Justice Roger Hamel-Smith and Justice Stanley John affirmed the death sentence imposed on Pierre by High Court Judge Melvin Baird for the murder of Sangre Grande taxi driver Gewan Bagwasitiar.

Following that decision, the court informed the attorneys that the reasons for the decision to be affirmed  would be given in writing yesterday. In the 13-page document delivered by Justice John yesterday, the court noted that in light of the decision of Balkissoon Roodal Privy Council No 18 of 2003, the matter was being remitted to Justice Baird to deal with the issue of sentencing. Pierre, 22, of Eden Lane, Laventille’ was found guilty of Bagwasitiar’s murder by a 12-member jury on October 15, 2002. The facts presented in the trial was that around 11 am on February 28, 2000, Pierre entered Bagwasitiar’s taxi to go to Vega de Oropouche. On arrival there, and in view of another man, Pierre slit Bagwasitiar’s throat twice before forcing the other occupant to assist him in dragging Bagwasitiar’s body into some nearby bushes.

Bagwasitiar, who was still alive at the time, died shortly after arriving at the Sangre Grande General Hospital. In his appeal, Pierre contended that a miscarriage of justice had occurred when his attorney had led evidence of his good character even though he knew of a previous conviction. This, he contended, deprived him of a fair trial. The court ruled that there was no merit to the grounds and noted that the Prosecution’s case was a strong one, which carried evidence from an eyewitness and two officers who interacted with Pierre at various times shortly after the killing. As a result, Justice John explained, the ground was dismissed. On the final ground, Pierre contended that the trial judge had misdirected the jury when he had suggested Pierre’s contradiction of himself in his evidence, was a lie that was capable of supporting the Prosecution’s case.

He noted that the judge had omitted to inform them that the lie must be deliberate and relate to the issue for it to amount to corroboration and that this omission had deprived him of a fair trial. In response, the court stated that it was obvious to them that the judge considered the matter a trivial one that did not require a full direction and therefore was under no obligation to give one. They noted, however, that by informing the jury that “the mere fact that the accused tells a lie is not in itself evidence of guilt,” the judge had dealt with the issue adequately and no injustice was done.