Attorney calls for killer’s retrial

Three Appeal Court judges seemed to have been baffled by certain submissions made by an attorney in the Cascade murder appeal, which started yesterday. Among the submissions made by attorney Leon Gokool that seemed to have bewildered the judges was that murder was no longer a common-law offence, but a statutory one. Another submission  was that the Privy Council made a mistake in the case of Charles Matthews when the Law Lords, in a majority decision, decided that our Constitution was not subject to modification. Gokool said they decided that point erroneously. Gokool dauntlessly argued his 14 grounds of appeal before Justices Stanley John (president), Ivor Archie and Paula Mae Weekes.

Gokool is  representing Lester Pitman, who was convicted with Daniel Agard for the triple  murder of Maggie Lee, Lynette Pearson and John Cropper. Attorney Bindra Dolsingh instructed by Dawn Mohan is appearing for Agard, while special prosecutor Dana Seetahal is for the State. The two men were found guilty of killing the trio on December 11, 2001 at Cropper’s home at Second Avenue, Cascade. They were sentenced to death on July 14, 2004 by Justice Hebert Volney. At the end of Gokool’s submissions, he asked the court to order a retrial for Pitman, or alternatively, be sent back for a re-sentencing hearing.

He also argued that at the trial, the prosecution had indicated that it was proceeding on the basis of the Felony Murder Rule (FMR) but the trial judge summed up the case to the jury on Joint Enterprise (JE). He said this resulted in his client’s fundamental rights being infringed, and the infringement was a denial of due process. He explained that his reason for saying that murder was no longer a common-law offence was because of the Privy Council’s ruling in Andrew Moses, which abolished the Felony Murder Rule and substituted Joint Enterprise. However, when Parliament later amended the criminal law act in 1997 and re-stated the FMR it no longer was common-law, but statutory. Therefore, when the charge stated that Pitman and

Agard committed murder contrary to common-law it was wrong, he argued. Gokool stated the trial judge should have used his discretion and hold a sentencing hearing instead of pronouncing the mandatory death sentence. He claimed that when the Privy Council reinstated the mandatory death sentence last year, it announced that those prisoners already convicted of murder would benefit from the previous ruling which allowed a sentencing hearing. At the time of that ruling, he said, his client was on trial and was therefore entitled to such a hearing. When hearing resumes today, Dolsingh will start his submission.