Legal arguments dominate hearing

The sentence of teen killer Leroy Andrews came up for review yesterday before Justice Anthony Carmona at the Port-of-Spain Fourth Criminal Court, with most of the time being taken up in arguments about procedure to be followed in the case. Andrews, 30, was found guilty of the murder of Marion Narinesingh in Lopinot, and was sentenced at the President’s Pleasure by Justice Lennox Deyalsingh on June 29 1993, since he was a minor at the time and could not be given the death penalty.

Andrews’ attorneys Gerald Ramdeen and Mark Seepersad had, on February 2, 2004, filed a motion that under the Children’s Act, their client’s detention was unconstitutional because it contradicted the rule of separation of powers. Andrews should have been detained at the Court’s Pleasure, the attorneys said. Madame Justice Mira Dean Amorer had upheld Andrews’ motion and ordered that he be detained at the Court’s Pleasure with periodical reviews. The State had then agreed to a consent order.

However, when the matter was called before Carmona on December 2, 2004, the State requested that the consent order be re-opened by Justice Dean Amorer in light of the Privy Council judgment in Matthew’s case — the Privy Council had ruled there was no contradiction of separation of powers in having the Mercy Committee, instead of the Judiciary, evaluate the sentences of persons on Death Row. Submissions will again be heard by Carmona on February 16.