CJ: Sentences too low for Bobart kidnappers

Chief Justice Sat Sharma yesterday warned   kidnappers that they will spend very long jail terms once convicted of the crime which is now plaguing  society. He also announced his astonishment that all five accused in the Camille Bobart case were not charged with kidnapping. The CJ made these statements while dismissing appeals brought by two of Bobart’s kidnappers — Sean Subransingh and Rasheed Karim. Both appellants would have started their sentences from yesterday. The others convicted are Hayden Benjamin, Carlos Manickchand and his brother Dane. Subransingh and Benjamin were the only two to be charged with kidnapping.

Subransingh, 35, a businessman of Valley View, La Romaine, was sentenced to 15 years for false imprisonment, 15 years for kidnapping and one year for common assault. Karim, 33, a pilot of Cummings Street in Arouca, was jailed for ten years on a conviction of false imprisonment. Dane Manickchand, 28, a former bank clerk, received 12 years on conviction of falsely imprisoning Bobart, while his brother Carlos, who trial judge Justice Herbert Volney described as the boss of the operation, was sentenced to 15 years on a conviction of false imprisonment and two years for demanding money by menace. Benjamin, 33, received 12 years for false imprisonment, 12 years for kidnapping and three years for assault. Each individual’s sentences are to run concurrently.

The court, comprising CJ Sharma, Justice Roger Hamel-Smith and Justice Lionel Jones, felt that the sentences passed in the Bobart case were low. Subransingh’s attorneys were Pamela Elder SC, Owen Hinds Jr and Richard Mason while Karim’s appeal was argued by attorney Ian Stuart Brooks. The State was represented by special prosecutor Dana Seetahal. Bobart, 29, an employee of TSTT, was kidnapped on April 7, 2000, at the Gulf City car park. Several days later, her mother, Patricia, featured in a sting operation in Venezuela which led to the arrest of the five and the rescue of her daughter at 38 Commodore Court in Westmoorings. Elder and Brooks, in their grounds of appeal, complained about several issues in the judge’s summation. Elder complained that the judges’ summation lacked a robust direction on issues of inconsistencies and oral statements. She also accused the judge of making unfair and imbalanced comments. She noted that while then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cecil Carrington, had recorded in his pocket diary that he had a telephone conversation with Subransingh, he neglected to note what the conversation was about, but recalled it in his testimony.

She again recalled that Carrington’s credibility was tested when he claimed that he was not aware that Subransingh had come to visit him at his office with his attorney. But another policeman testified that he had told Carrington that Subransingh’s attorneys were waiting outside. She complained that these facts were not marshaled by the judge and were not properly placed before the jury in a fair and balanced matter. Elder also sought the court’s leave to withdraw the appeal against sentence. Brooks had made his submissions on an earlier occasion. After dismissing the appeal, the court said it would give its written judgment at a later date, but not before the CJ said: “I am completely at loss as to why all the accused in the case were not charged with kidnapping since the evidence has been one of joint enterprise. There is a prevalence of kidnapping and a danger to society. “The sentence passed in the Bobart case was on the low side. Anyone found guilty of kidnapping must be prepared to spend a very long time in prison. Society must be protected.”