After spending 26 years behind bars for the murder of a man whom they strangled and stabbed to the neck, brothers Daniel and Kornel Vaux were yesterday released on parole after Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan signed licences for their release which was recommended by the Parole Board.
Also granted his freedom and leaving prison yesterday—after 27 years, was former school teacher Lallman Mulai who had chopped and beaten a man with whom he had an argument over cows grazing on his (Mulai’s) land.
Lallman, now 59 years old, had been convicted along with his brother Bharatraj Mulai for the 1992 killing of Doodnauth Seeram at Mahaica, East Coast Demerara. However, Bharatraj died in prison two years ago.
Like the Vaux brothers, the Mulai siblings were sentenced to death following their convictions. In January of 2013, however, they all had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment.
Daniel, now 60 and Kornel, 58, were jointly charged for the July 4th, 1993 murder of Balwant Jaikissoon. On December 19th, 1997 they were both convicted.
The prosecution’s case was that Daniel in a confession statement admitted that he and his brother committed the murder over a debt owed to him by Jaikissoon. Daniel in his statement to police investigators had said that he was employed as a driver by Jakissoon whom he alleged was in the drug trade.
He related to the lawmen that prior to the killing; he had transported Jaikissoon to a number of different locations and was promised payment of US$20,000 by the deceased for the transportation of the drugs which were packed in suitcases.
According to Daniel, Jaikissoon instead claimed all the money flowing from the deals and never paid him a cent.
The confession statement which had been admitted at trial further detailed Daniel relating to his brother, Jaikissoon’s refusal to pay him and his plan to kill him as a result.
The state’s case was that consequently, on July 4th, 1993 the two brothers lured their victim to a selected spot along the Soesdyke/Linden Highway where they killed him by strangulation and infliction of a stab to the neck.
Both brothers had made oral and written confessions that they had strangled Jaikissoon to death. They were incarcerated 11 days after the murder and found guilty and sentenced to death on December 19th, 1997 following the conclusion of a trial.
They would then go on to appeal their conviction, but this was dismissed by the Guyana Court of Appeal on December 7th, 2000. In January of 2013, their death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment.
Cows grazing
Facts surrounding the Mulai brothers who were jointly indicted for murdering Seeram are that they had an argument with him over cows grazing on Lallman’s land and his threat to have them impounded.
The case for the prosecution was that Lallman had threatened to have the animals impounded and during an argument over this, the brothers violently attacked Seeram. The onslaught occurred on August 29th, 1992—but Seeram’s wounded and beaten body which was left lying on the ground would be found floating in the Mahaica Creek three days later.
Armed with a cutlass, Bharatraj chopped the victim, severing his right wrist as he parried the blow. As the deceased lay on the ground, the brothers were seen beating him “mercilessly” with sticks.
The court had heard at the trial of Lallman being armed with an akre stick “and something looking like a spear.”
The brothers were given two joint trials in the High Court—one in 1994 and another in 1996. On each occasion they were found guilty as charged.
Following the appeal to the first conviction, the Court of Appeal set aside the sentence of death and a new trial was ordered.
On the second occasion—on March 1st, 1996, the conviction and sentence of death were affirmed by the appellate court. Like the Vaux brothers, the Mulai brothers were successful in having their death sentences commuted to life in January of 2013.
Bharatraj died in prison on October 14th, 2017.
In making recommendations to the Minister who alone has the power to grant parole, the Board considered the applicants’ eligibility and suitability.
The policy of the Executive stipulates that an application by a lifer to be released on parole will not be entertained during the first three years after the date of commutation.
Having their initial sentences of death commuted since 2013, all three applicants would have satisfied the eligibility criterion needed for their application which they made three years ago.
Meanwhile, as regards the factor of suitability, the Board, as it is mandated to do, considers such factors as the prisoner’s behaviour.
No report of bad behaviour
This newspaper understands that according to reports from the welfare officers assigned to Daniel and Kornel, as well as prison assessment reports; there has been no report of bad behaviour or misconduct from either convict since their incarceration 26 years ago.
This the Board noted, as being “encouraging;” while adding that the men are in fact seeking another chance to be productive members of society, highlighting in the same vein that they have both benefitted from the anger management programme provided by the prison.
In light thereof, the Board expressed the view that the applicants are remorseful and more importantly, as it is mandated to determine, that their release will pose no substantial risk to public safety.
Accordingly, the Board advised and recommended their release which was sanctioned by Minister Ramjattan.
The same considerations of eligibility and suitability had to be made by the Board in Mulai’s application, and having satisfied the respective criteria, the Board also recommended his release which was endorsed by the Minister.
The Board noted that a prisoner’s conduct in open prison is of great importance in assessing whether he or she is suitable for release.
According to the parole report submitted by Mulai’s welfare officer and prison officials which was seen by this newspaper, he was described as a “disciplined, willing, hardworking, quiet, humble, peaceful and diligent worker.”
Appearing before it three times over the last three years, the Board said it was able to question and scrutinize him and found him to be “remorseful”. The Vaux brothers had also appeared before the Board thrice before being recommended for parole.
Having deliberated on Mulai’s application, the Board expressed the view that he would not pose a substantial risk to public safety.
Daniel, Kornel and Lallman are the only three persons serving life sentences to have been granted parole this year.
Since the establishment in 2004 of the Parole Unit of the Ministry of Public Security, to date, last year has seen the highest number of convicted prisoners being paroled—totaling 96—while 2007 has seen the lowest grant of just two prisoners, all spanning convictions for various offences.
For this year so far, as at the end of October, 73 prisoners have been released on parole which includes the Vaux brothers and Mulai.
Beside this and last year, 2017 was the only other year which saw a significant number of parole grants—that being 61. 2016 saw a grant of 25, while for all other years, no more than 17 prisoners were paroled.
Administrative system
Parole is an administrative system which provides for the early release on licence of a prison inmate into the community.
In parole language the term of imprisonment may be determinate, that is, for a fixed period, or indeterminate, that is imprisonment for life. In Guyana, parole is governed by the Parole Act No. 24 of 1991 Laws of Guyana Chapter 11:08 which became effective on January 1st, 1992.
By section 3 of the Act, a Board was established to be known as the Parole Board. It consists of a Chairman; who shall be a person who has been, or who is qualified to be a puisne judge. The Chairman is appointed by the Minister. The incumbent Chairman is retired Justice Oslen Small.
Additionally, the Board comprises two other members, also appointed by the Minister, of whom one is a medical practitioner having special qualifications or experience in psychiatry; and the other a person who in the opinion of the Minister is qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in matters relating to the supervision, or aftercare, of discharged prisoners.
The Director of Prisons and a member of the police force not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner, designated by the Commissioner of Police are also members of the Board. These five persons are the core members of the Board.
However, by section 3 (2) of the Act, the five Chairmen of the visiting committee of each of the five prisons are entitled to be present at, and participate in the discussion at any meeting of the Board when considering the release of any person serving imprisonment in that prison whom they have oversight.
Section 4 of the Act states that, “the duty of the Board is to advise the Minister” whether or not to release an inmate on parole. This advice extends to the conditions to be included in the licence should the Minister approve the Board’s recommendations for such release.
Section 5 of the Act imposes the mandatory conditions that where a person is released on parole, their licence shall include a condition for supervision by the officer in charge of the police station or officer in charge of the probation office or both such persons.
Parole will not be granted unless two conditions are satisfied. It must be shown that the inmate is eligible and is also a suitable prisoner to be released into society.
