While the Guyana Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed the life sentence imposed against Dhupaul Singh who back in 2016 had been convicted for murder, it reduced the 25 years he had been given before being eligible for parole, to 20 years instead.
The five-year deduction came after the appellate court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered the relevant guidelines for sentencing given all the circumstances of the case.
Acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards, who heard the matter along with Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud, said that while interfering with the judge’s discretion in sentencing is generally shunned, “where it is wrong in principle,” an appellate court would intervene.
The Chancellor said that the court needed to consider whether the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.
Following his conviction, Justice Jo-Ann Barlow had imposed the life sentence on Singh, ordering that he only be considered eligible for parole after serving a minimum of 25 years.
A jury had found him guilty of the September 2nd, 2014 murder of Mahaica farmer Balkissoon.
As Singh’s attorney, Mark Conway had contended in appeal, the appellate court also found that from the record, there was nothing to suggest that the trial judge discounted the mandatory period for time spent on remand awaiting trial.
On the ground of severity of sentence argued by Conway, the Court of Appeal allowed Singh’s appeal, but only to the extent that the 5-year deduction be made.
The court, however, made it clear that both the conviction and life sentences were being affirmed.
Conway had also presented on behalf of the appellant that the trial judge had not given proper directions to the jury, in her summation on provocation.
The appellate court, however, disagreed, finding that the direction was sufficient.
Regarding this ground of appeal, the Chancellor said that the trial judge did give the jury the benefit of legal direction for it to arrive at a verdict.
The court pointed out that among other things, Justice Barlow did not only specifically address the issue of provocation, but had also highlighted from the facts, that it was Balkissoon who was the aggressor.
On this point Justice Cummings-Edwards said that “the jury must treated with some degree of commonsense,” as being capable of gleaning from the directions given, what it wanted and that it could have found Singh guilty of manslaughter instead, if it found that that was justified.
Conway’s argument had been that provocation was not properly dealt with, and had sought to contend that had this been done, it quite possibly could have resulted in a guilty verdict for the lesser offence of manslaughter and not for the capital offence, which in turn could have quite possibly resulted in a lesser sentence to that imposed.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecu-tions Dionne Mc Cammon, on behalf of the state had agreed with Conway on this point, stating that “fuller” directions could have been given to the jury on the issue of manslaughter in the absence of which the appellant may indeed have been robbed of a verdict of guilty for the lesser count.
On the issue of the sentence being severe, however, the state counsel had said that when one looks at the severity of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased whose head was almost severed by the cutlass with which Singh chopped him, the sentence was warranted.
She said too, that considering that the penalty for murder is by law punishable by death, the sentence imposed against Singh could not have been considered severe in the circumstance where the trial judge would have exercised her discretion and given a sentence which affords the convict the possibility of one day being reintegrated to society.
Mc Cammon has said that in these circumstances, the sentence imposed—which itself does not mean that Singh has to spend the rest of his natural life behind bars, but has the possibility after 25 years of being released on parole, was reasonable and in no way could be regarded as being severe.
Singh, called ‘Tailor man’ or ‘Tailor’ had been unanimously convicted by a jury of the September 2nd, 2014 murder of Mahaica farmer Balkissoon, at Helena Number Two, Mahaica.
The incident was said to have stemmed from an argument the two men had following insults hurled by Singh regarding Balkissoon’s wife.
