On the 23 years imposed upon him for the rape and vicious beating of a woman, Calvin Ramcharran holds the view that the sentence is “manifestly excessive,” especially when considered against what is generally imposed in cases comparable to his and precedent.
This was the main thrust of the argument presented on his behalf by defence attorney Nigel Hughes when his matter came up for hearing yesterday morning before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
By a majority of 11 to 1, a jury back in 2015 found Ramcharran guilty as charged of the 2012 rape of the woman whom he also beat during the act.
Trial Judge Jo-Ann Barlow had sentenced Ramcharran to 23 years for the rape and three years for the physical assault. She ordered that the sentences be served concurrently.
To his appeal before the Guyana Court of Appeal, acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards had said that given the requirements of modern sentencing guidelines, the only shortcoming found on the part of the trial judge was that there was nothing indicating how she had arrived at the sentences.
Given the aggravating factors, however, especially the beating that the complainant suffered during the sexual assault, the appellate court had said that the sentences imposed were just.
Before the Trinidad-based court of last resort yesterday, however, Hughes said when looking at case law precedent set by the CCJ itself, the local courts failed to conform to sentencing guidelines established therein.
While acknowledging the repugnance of sexual offences, Hughes said that given the case law precedent of Pompey vs. the State in which the complainant was a child, he would have thought that the sentence against his client—where the complainant was an adult—would have been lower.
From the case of Pompey which had itself gone before the CCJ—and which dominated the submissions yesterday—Hughes held the view that the principle which ought to apply in Ramcharran’s case was not only establishing the base, but whether the penalty imposed by the trial judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, was not excessive.
Using Pompey as a guide, Hughes advanced for the Court’s consideration that if it were to be said that the base was 10 years which is five years less than the rape of a minor, then the sentence imposed on Ramcharran would have been more than twice the starting base.
He opined, however, that the difficulty with the decisions regarding the sentence imposed upon his client by both the trial judge and the appellate court was compounded by the absence of any reasons.
He quoted an extract from Pompey which said that where the sentencing court does not disclose the reasons for its sentencing, it becomes difficult to defend the sentence being just and that there is simply no material with which to defend the sentence.
From Pompey, he said that defending such a sentence is difficult where there is no pre-sentencing report and no victim impact statement. In the absence of such materials and reasons, Hughes reminded from Pompey, where the CCJ had itself ruled that a sentence of 37 years in that case—whether rightly or wrongly imposed, has the appearance as though it had been “plucked out of thin air.”
Hughes took issue with the Guyana Court of Appeal which he said referenced Pompey to the extent that it noted that a complaint it had with Justice Barlow’s sentence was the fact that she did not show the process by which she arrived at the sentence given the modern guidance on sentencing.
He said that having so identified, the appellate court failed to then illustrate how the absence of the process used to arrive at the sentence, did not adversely impact his client.
Meanwhile, in her address to the court, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Diana O’Brien, reminded that the case of Pompey dealt with a minor who was the victim.
She said, however, that the State’s contention as it relates to whether a sentence, starting-point or range in relation to an adult victim of a sexual offence should be necessarily lower, would depend primarily on the circumstances of the particular case.
Against this background she said that in Ramcharran’s case, there was the use of excessive violence against his victim which was “more than necessary to commit the offence of rape.”
This she said, along with the other aggravating factors in relation to the commission of the offence, would impact where the starting-point should fall in Ramcharran’s case.
She noted, too, the appellate court’s observation that sentences for offences such as that for which Ramcharran was convicted—especially where violence was used—are not usually short.
O’Brien said that in relation to what would have been appropriate or whether the sentence of 23 years was manifestly excessive as claimed by the Appellant, the majority of comparable cases in Guyana had not fallen outside of the range of that imposed upon Ramcharran.
She said that guided by legal authorities, the Court of Appeal was right in not interfering with the sentence since it did not find that it was wrong in principle, nor did it consider it to have been manifestly excessive or unjust.
Having heard submissions from both sides, the CCJ has said that it will now consider the arguments and announce at a later date when its decision will be rendered.
Presiding over the appeal are Justices Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Winston Anderson, Andrew Burgess, Peter Jamadar and Denys Barrow.
The charges against Ramcharran, stated that on July 22, 2012, at Soesdyke, East Bank Demerara, he sexually penetrated the young woman without her consent. Additionally, he was convicted of a charge that on the same day, during the rape, he assaulted her so as to cause actual bodily harm.
The state’s case was that the victim had gone to a dance with friends and was making her way to use the washroom when she was confronted by Ramcharran, who enquired from her whether she was “doing business.”
O’Brien, who led the state’s case at trial, had said that the young woman responded in the negative, at which point the convict grabbed her by the hand, after which a fight ensued between them.
The court had been told during the trial that Ramcharran then began hitting the victim repeatedly to the head with a bottle before dragging her aback an unfinished structure even as she continued to resist him.
The court had heard that it was at this point that the convict choked and punched the victim in her face as he raped her.
The state’s case also advanced that after the assault, Ramcharran offered the woman $65,000 and directed her to meet him at a car on the road. However, the young woman, who was stripped of her blouse by the convict, later sought assistance from other persons to leave the scene to seek medical attention as she was in and out of consciousness.
Both Ramcharran and the virtual complainant were 20 years old at the time.
