The convictions of Bibi Sharima-Gopaul and her former partner Jarvis Small who murdered Gopaul’s 16-year-old daughter Neesa, have been affirmed by the Guyana Court of Appeal; but their combined 202–year sentence has been considerably reduced to a combined term of 90 years.
Sharima-Gopaul’s previous 106-year jail sentence was reduced to 45 years, while Small’s 96 years were reduced to 45 years as well.
Delivering the ruling yesterday afternoon, acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards said the Court had found that the trial judge did not apply guidelines established in case law in imposing the sentences.
Chancellor Cummings-Edwards noted that as was conceded by the prosecution, the Court was also of the view that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
She said that the sentences lacked any guide of an analysis explaining the reason behind the 60-year base at which the trial judge commenced, while adding that there was no indication that like aggravating factors; mitigating factors were also taken into account.
In fact, the Court declared that a sentencing-hearing should have been specifically held at which probation reports could have been presented for the outlining of both aggravating and mitigating factors to guide the sentence to be imposed.
Chancellor Cummings-Edwards said that no doubt the teen meet a gruesome end, but noted that a sentencing hearing should nonetheless have been held. She said that had this been done, the Court would not have been as “hard-pressed” to find the reasoning behind the sentences imposed and may not have been as critical of trial Judge Navindra Singh’s discretion in the sentences he imposed.
In all of the circumstances, the appellate court ruled a base of 35 years to be an appropriate starting point to which 10 years were added for aggravating factors—outlining reasons—that it was a young person who was killed at the hands of persons close to her.
The Court said it also took into account the horrific injuries the child would have suffered as found by the autopsy and the manner in which her body had been disposed.
The Court said it also considered that the crime had been committed by adults who had clearly planned to kill the child, who it noted should at the least have been protected by her mother; who instead was found guilty of betraying her in the worst possible way.
The Chancellor said that in all the circumstances, the sentence of the appellants would be reduced to 45 years each; but noted that no further deductions would be granted for time they would have spent on remand awaiting trial.
She explained that while case law provides for pretrial deductions to be made, it also prohibits it, where the nature of the particular case so warrants. Neesa’s case she said, falls into the latter category.
In handing down the sentences in the High Court, Justice Singh had said he was starting the sentence at 60 years for each convict. The judge then added 10 years because they premeditated the murder, 10 years because the victim was a child, 10 years for the brutality meted out to the girl and six years for the domestic violence she suffered.
Meanwhile, the judge had told Sharima-Gopaul that she was being given an extra 10 years because Neesa was her child and she was supposed to protect her and not stand by and allow her to be murdered.
Commenting on the various grounds of appeal raised by the appellants, the Chancellor said the Court rejected arguments advanced by attorney Nigel Hughes who represented Small, that the indictments should have been severed.
Citing the likelihood of prejudice, Hughes had argued that his client should have been tried separately from Sharima-Gopaul. He had said that the testimony of prosecution star witness Simone De Nobrega was tainted and described it as “cut-throat” against which he said his client would have been prejudiced.
His position was that, even with the best of directions from the trial judge, the prejudice would still have existed.
Referencing a number of cases, the Court ruled, however, that given the interwoven nature of the evidence of the case, it was appropriate for the conduct of one trial, as the circumstances thereof were part and parcel of the one case.
The Chancellor said the Court was of the view that the trial judge had given adequate directions to the jury which would have dispelled any issue of prejudice and that it therefore would not have been appropriate to facilitate separate trials.
This ground of appeal was therefore dismissed.
On the issue of a no-case submission which had been made on Small’s behalf at the trial, the appellate court found that Justice Singh was right in overruling those submissions, stating that it ought to have rightly been left to the jury (as the sole judges of the facts) to decide what it would accept or reject.
The Court said it found the evidence against Small to have been sufficient to be put before a jury and that rightly directed, would have been able to weigh the facts set before it.
Attorney Arudranauth Gossai who represented Sharima-Gopaul, had contended that the evidence presented against his client by De Nobrega was more prejudicial than probative as were other bits of evidence which he argued ought not to have been granted.
The Court said that while it indeed found that some bits of evidence should not have been admitted at trial, neither those, nor De Nobrega’s, were more prejudicial than probative.
Here again, the appellate court said it found the directions to the jury from the trial judge to have been adequate, regarding how the evidence ought to have been assessed.
Finally, on the issue of the defence of the convicts not being adequately put to the jury, the Court said that ideally the trial judge should have highlighted in his summation of the case to the jury, the statements made by Small and Sharima-Gopaul from the docks.
Notwithstanding this, however, the Chancellor said that the jury, having also heard the case for itself, would have been aware of the respective defences raised by the convicts and would therefore have been in a position to decide what it would accept or reject.
In all the circumstances, the Court said it found “no substantial miscarriage of justice.”
The matter was heard by the Chancellor and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory.
Sharima-Gopaul and Small were both found guilty by a jury in 2015 for the gruesome murder of the former Queen’s College student, whose remains were found on October 2nd, 2010, stuffed in a suitcase which was discovered anchored by several dumbbells in a creek at the Emerald Tower resort.
Lawyers for the convicts subsequently filed appeals to their convictions and sentences arguing among other things, that Justice Singh committed several errors during the conduct of the trial, including the admittance of evidence that was prejudicial and failing to properly direct the jury.
De Nobrega, who was a former cellmate of Sharima-Gopaul, said Sharima-Gopaul had confided in her that it was Small who murdered her daughter by bashing her head in with a piece of wood.
De Nobrega had said that Sharima-Gopaul related to her that Small told her that they needed to get Neesa “out of the picture” and that he eventually killed the teen in her presence.
The witness had told the court that despite her assurance to Sharima-Gopaul, she would not have been able to live with herself if she had kept such a secret. She said as a mother herself of two sons, “I couldn’t carry such a weight.” The woman added, “Neesa deserved to get justice and no matter what, Neesa didn’t deserve to die by the hands of someone she trusted; someone that was supposed to protect her.”
At the trial, the court had heard that Neesa had made several police reports of Small sexually assaulting her.
Pathologist Dr. Nehaul Singh, who performed the autopsy on the teen’s body, had testified that she was missing 50% of her head and that the multiple blunt trauma that caused her death had been forcefully inflicted.
She was said to have been clobbered to the extent that her head appeared bashed in.
Neesa’s killing had sparked protests from several non-governmental organisations which had said that the “system had failed her.”
