10 killers waiting on death row

TEN MEN who were convicted of committing one of the most brutal murders, are very close to falling within the guidelines laid down in the Pratt and Morgan judgment. They have been on death row for four years and five months — just seven months from cheating the hangman, that is if they lose their final round of appeals. Michael ‘Rat’ Majaraj, Samuel Maharaj, Damian Ramiah, Bobby Ramiah, Seenath Ramiah, Daniel Gopaul, Richard Huggins, Leslie Huggins, Mark Jaikeran, and Junior Phillip were sentenced to death by Justice Stanley John at the Port-of-Spain Criminal Court on August 7, 2001, for the murder of Thackoor Boodram, brother of executed killer Dole Chadee.

They lost their appeals in the Court of Appeal on October 2, 2002. Their petition seeking special leave to appeal their convictions will he heard before a three-member Privy Council on March 13. Should they be granted leave on that day, the substantive appeal will not be heard until sometime in 2007 or later. That will mean that they would have spent more than five years on death row, and like so many others before them, will be recipients of a commutation. Should they succeed on their appeal, what is the Privy Council to do? Based on three judgments delivered by the Law Lords in the last year, the ten on death row may see freedom.

In the Jagdeo Singh case, the Law Lords did not order a re-trial saying that Singh had already served five of his seven-year sentence. The Privy Council did not order a re-trial for Deochan Ramdhanie and others as they had been in prison for nine years, and that a defence witness had since died. In the Brad Boyce case last week, the Law Lords did not order a re-trial although the trial judge and the Court of Appeal erred. They found that this death of Jason Johnson took place nine years ago and memory of the incident could have faded. By 2007, the killing of Thackoor Boodram would have taken place ten years before. Would the Privy Council order a re-trial after so long? That is if they agree with the submissions of the appellants. This case was one of the more complex trials in the history of the country.

The State had to retain British Queen’s Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel to prosecute. What was the evidence? On the evening of December 20, 1997, Boodram was kidnapped. In the early hours of the following day, his brother Mahadeo Motie was contacted by the kidnappers. But Boodram was eventually murdered. On December 30, 1997, as a result of an anonymous call, police officers went to the Caroni Cremation site and found Boodram’s severed head in a whiskey box. A post-mortem on the head showed that he had been shot in the head three times. The State’s case was that the first nine appellants kidnapped Boodram, and Junior Phillip killed him. The State’s case was based on the evidence of Junior Grandison and Halle Selassie Amoroso. The plan was to kidnap Boodram. That was discussed since July 1997. It was next discussed around December 17, 1997.

The plan was to kidnap Boodram, keep him for 12 days until they got the money. On December 20, 1997, the final meeting took place at the home of Damian Ramiah. Later that day, Boodram was at a friend’s home in Spring Village, Curepe, when he saw a car approaching his pig pen. He went to see what was happening and was snatched and put in the car. The following morning, his brother Motie received a call. The caller said, “we have your brother and we are demanding $5 million for his release. Get in touch with your brother Dole to get the money.” The caller added, “if I don’t get the money, I will kill him.” Five days later, the person called and asked if the ransom money was ready. He told Motie, “put the money in the tray of your pick-up and go out on Cooperative Street and leave the hood light on, so that the person will be able to see you.”

Boodram who was present with the caller said, “Prak, these fellas are serious, as I speak, because they have a cutlass at my throat.” No money was paid to the kidnappers and Boodram was executed during the early morning of December 30 at Mandillion Road, Sangre Grande. The plan was to severe the head and burn the body. Samuel Maharaj and Daniel Gopaul remained silent in their defence, the other eight all denied the kidnapping and murder allegations. The appellants are going to the Privy Council with three main grounds, one of which is headlined — JURY PRESSURE. They contend that the verdicts of the jury were reach in circumstances of undue pressure.The submit that after the mandatory three hours had expired, the jury returned and at the judge’s suggestion to the forewoman, more time was given. The forewoman stated, “we wish to retire for one hour and then we should have something more concrete.”

The trial judge replied, “you wish to retire for an hour. You will get the hour.” Their argument is that the judge erred in specifying to the jury that they would get another hour. This indication, accompanied as it was by any direction, either at that stage or earlier, that the jury must feel under no pressure of time to reach a verdict, placed the pressure of a deadline on the jury. They further contend that although the judge was wrong to allow the jury to retire with a one-hour deadline in their minds, having done so, he should have brought them back after the hour had expired to establish if they had reached verdicts at that stage. According to the submissions, there was a real risk that the failure to bring the jury back to court after the specified hour may have given them the impression that the court was waiting and expecting verdicts and that they would be left indefintely until these were forthcoming. Only time will tell what will be the verdict.