While convicted killer Dhupaul Singh argues that the sentence of life imposed against him with a possibility of parole after 25 years is severe, the Director of Public Prosecutions has defended the sentence, arguing that when one considers the aggravating factors, the sentence is justified.
Following his conviction for murder back in 2016, Justice Jo-Ann Barlow had imposed the life sentence on Singh, ordering that he was only to 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.
When his appeal hearing continued yesterday before Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory at the Court of Appeal yesterday, Singh’s attorney held to his contention that the sentence was too severe.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Dionne Mc Cammon, however, 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 be 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 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.
Defence attorney Mark Conway, however, contends on behalf of his client that the sentence imposed does not reflect guidelines or principles laid down in case law, noting that the judge should have stated that full credit be given for any time spent on remand.
As a result, he argues that a sentence was rendered which was “unjustified” and “manifestly excessive.”
Counsel has also taken issue with the trial judge’s summation of the case to the jury in which he said that proper directions on the issue of provocation had not been given.
On this point Conway argued 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.
Mc Cammon 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 if the jury so found.
In the circumstances, she submitted that the appellate court, as it has the jurisdiction to do, can substitute the finding for murder for that of manslaughter.
The Assistant DPP agreed that provocation did arise and ought to have been frontally put to the jury, even as she concurred with Conway that there seemed to be a gap in the trial judge’s summation as to how the issue of provocation was dealt, if at all.
Like Conway, Mc Cammon observed that while Justice Barlow during the trial dealt with the issue of self-defence and had said that the issue of provocation would be specifically dealt with in the summing-up to the jury it was not.
Having heard the submissions from both sides, the matter was adjourned to November 30th for reports on the aspect of the judge’s summation in a bid to ascertain to what extent provocation was dealt with—if at all.
The defence submits that the judge erred by not marshalling the facts or evidence that may have yielded a finding of manslaughter by reason of provocation and that the jury was not alerted by the judge of the facts or evidence that they may consider in deciding if provocation was an issue.
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 Balkisson’s wife.
The appeal is being heard virtually before the appellate court. Singh joins in like manner from the Sibley Hall Prison at Mazaruni.
