Dear Editor,
On May 12th, SN published an article by Femi Harris, titled “Neesa Gopaul case: CCJ judges cast doubt on testimony used to convict Jarvis Small – -Justice Saunders says there should have been separate trials”. Now, because the DPP may have made a mistake by jointly charging (instead of separate charges and trials), Bibi-Sharima-Gopaul and Jarvis Small – that in itself is reason to free Jarvis Small. A technicality nullifies all the hard evidence of Jarvis Small’s culpability. In one shot, the system of justice has become a farce. I reproduce my blog comment on the SN May 12th article, as follows: Just three quotes from the May 12th article:
(1) Clearly agitated by the DPP’s response, Justice Saunders immediately enquired from her rhetorically whether Small was the only strong man in Guyana. (A glaring prejudicial statement).
(2) “I have not seen a clearer case that cried out for separate trials quite frankly,” Justice Saunders then interjected to add, advancing that it is “impossible for any human being” to separate what De Nobrega said her cellmate told her that Small did, from what is probative against Small.
(3) Justice Barrow intervened, however, to clarify that he was not disputing that the dumbbells at some point were Small’s, but rather that he could not see how, supposedly last leaving Sharima-Gopaul’s home, they connect Small to the murder. (Judge insists on applying this fact in isolation, disconnecting it from whole context).
Above are three extracts from the article. But there are several more. Justices’ statements suggest these points of evidence are prejudicial against Small. I will say I read this article 3-times – and each time I became more convinced that if anything, the Justices are the ones who put on display their prejudices. I am convinced that if a video exists of Small actively participating in the murder – and if the Justices were to see the video – they would still doubt Small is the murderer. Do these Justices really believe that because the dumb bells and suitcase were at Sharmila-Gopaul’s House – that fact lends to reasoning that Small could not be involved in the murder? Incredulous!!!
If Small walks, GoG should abolish the CCJ Court. Go back to Privy Council. What I read in this article makes you sick to your stomach. Nigel Hughes as defense lawyer is doing his job – his job is to get his client off on any pretext, any argument. Justices have a different role – certainly not to grasp on to anything that floats and use it as an excuse to free a murderer. Trial Court convicted. Appeals Court upheld. Now the Highest Court is exposing its baseless prejudices against a solid, proven guilty verdict.
Singapore inherited the British system of jurisprudence. This system allowed many guilty murders to go free on “technicalities. Lee Kuan Yew became leader of Singapore – and expressed his frustration with murderers going free. He did something about it. He reformed the system. Today, murderers do not go free in that society. A Jarvis Small in Singapore will not go free. Who is courageous enough in Guyana to do what LKY did for Singapore? If the CCJ keeps this up, they will become a national joke.
Sincerely,
Mike Persaud
