The appeal by John Blanchard, who killed his three children, to have his prison term reduced was dismissed last Monday.
In 2016, he was handed three life sentences for the killing of his three children.
Blanchard, 40, of Soesdyke, East Bank Demerara, was initially charged with the October 11, 2011 murders of his three young children: Joy, aged six; Belika, aged 10; and Daniel, aged four. The causes of their deaths was given as multiple stab wounds.
He was, however, allowed by state prosecutors to plead guilty to three counts of manslaughter. A life sentence was then imposed by Justice Jo-Ann Barlow, on each count. The sentences were instructed to be served concurrently. It was further ordered by the judge that Blanchard would not be eligible for parole until after serving a minimum of 30 years.
Blanchard, through his lawyer Mark Conway, moved to the Court of Appeal seeking a reduction of the sentences imposed by the trial judge. He contended that the sentences were manifestly excessive and not in keeping with established sentencing guidelines. He argued that Justice Barlow erred in law in not allowing or stating that the minimum period of incarceration must include the time spent on remand. He also argued that the trial lawyer failed to present an application that could mitigate the sentences.
Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal, Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory rejected the defence counsel’s argument that the trial judge erred in law in not allowing for a reduction. The decision was based on the case itself and the fact that life imprisonment is an indeterminate number of years, unless it is for that period taken from the other part of the sentence where the trial judge stated that he is not eligible for parole until after serving 30 years.
Having considered that the principles outlined in the above-named case are not cast in stone and that the trial judge has the discretion as to whether or not to impose a particular sentence, the Court of Appeal found that Justice Barlow did not err given the circumstances of the case.
Blanchard’s contention that the trial lawyer was incompetent since he/she failed to make an application to mitigate sentencing was also rejected by the appellate court. The Appeal Court then dismissed Blanchard’s appeal asserting that the imposition of the three life sentences was fair.
According to reports in the media, Blanchard had accused his wife of being unfaithful. She had been away from home due to work.
It was reported that on the day in question, the two had a telephone conversation and the woman told him that she wanted the house and land. She also told him that he should keep the children. An argument ensued and the woman informed that she would not be returning home until Christmas.
Enraged, the man stabbed the children while they were asleep in their bed. According to the police, the man, in his caution statement, said that he wanted to commit suicide after the stabbing. It was reported that Blanchard told the court that he loved his children but he wanted his wife to return home, at the same time there were things that were bothering him. He further said that he didn’t know what caused him to turn his anger on the children.
