Andy Boodram who back in 2018 was sentenced to life in prison for severely wounding his neighbour Deonarine Persaud, who had asked him to turn down the volume of the music he was playing, has appealed both his conviction and sentence.
Boodram called ‘Boy,’ (the Appellant), argues that the sentence was too severe.
At his appeal hearing yesterday morning before the Court of Appeal, his attorney George Thomas submitted that “the trial judge erred in law when he admitted the oral statements to form part of the evidence which he then relied upon in the directions to the jury.”
Counsel’s contention is that a perusal of the record of proceedings does not show any notation that during the course of the trial, the judge did make a record of his ruling on the issue of voluntariness of the oral statements.
He advances that there is no written record of the oral statements in any police station diary or book attributed to, or signed by the Appellant or even uttered by him during the confrontation held by police, that he had chopped anyone.
Thomas argues that in fact, his client has, at all material times, maintained that he chopped no one. Against this background, and referencing a number of case law authorities on which he sought to rely, the lawyer submits that the judge should not have admitted the oral statement of the Appellant and should therefore not have used the statement to establish the element of the offence in that of Knowledge.
Thomas argues that by the end of the case for the Prosecution and Defence, there were two diametrically opposed sets of facts for the jury to consider—that told by the Prose-cution witnesses—and that told by the Appellant and his witness.
Thomas submitted that from the tenor of the directions to the jury on the issues of the defence, the trial judge “failed to adequately analyze the relevant evidence so as to assist the jury to consider whether there was any merit in the defence or whether there are then left unsure as to the true position of what transpired.”
On the issue of the sentence which Boodram says is severe, his lawyer, after citing a number of legal authorities, advanced that the sentence arrived at for the offence of felonious wounding did not take into consideration any aggravating or mitigating factors.
In deference to those legal precedents, Thomas submitted that such factors ought to have been considered before the starting point for the sentence was even set.
“It is respectfully submitted that the sentence for felonious wounding that is life imprisonment may be said to be excessive when one looks at the sentencing pattern of this Honour-able Court in relation to manslaughter and murder convictions,” Thomas said.
Background
Boodram, a father of three, had appeared visibly shocked when Justice Navindra Singh had announced his sentence.
When he had been given a chance to speak, the convict told the court that he was in a fight with the complainant, Persaud, called ‘Anil,’ but maintained that he never chopped him.
“It was a fight, but I didn’t chop Anil,” the convict had said, while casting the blame on someone else, whom he claimed to have also been a part of the fight.
Boodram had been indicted for attempted murder and the jury found him not guilty by a proportion of 11 to 1. It was on the alternative count of felonious wounding that he was however, convicted by a proportion of 10 to 2. The jury found him guilty of wounding Persaud on September 24th, 2011, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or cause him serious bodily harm.
Thomas had begged the court for the most minimum of sentences, advancing that his client had no previous conviction.
For her part, however, Prosecutor Abigail Gibbs had advanced that having been found guilty by his peers, Boodram needed to pay the full consequences of his actions.
She had asked the Court to consider the effect the injuries have had
on the complainant, while highlighting the several surgeries he had had to undergo and the extent of those operations.
Of concern to the prosecutor also was the fact that Boodram used a cutlass to inflict the injuries. She impressed upon the court that the type of weapon used needed to be considered as well.
Before imposing the sentence, Justice Singh asked Boodram whether he was maintaining that it was someone else who had chopped the complainant, to which he responded in the affirmative.
Thereafter, the judge noted that for the offence committed, the law provides for life imprisonment and flogging.
“But I will not sentence you to flogging. I will sentence you to life imprisonment,” the judge declared.
In his testimony, Persaud had recalled being chopped several times by Boodram, whom he had asked to lower his music as his sick infant son had been sleeping at the time.
Despite repeated appeals, however, the witness said Boodram, hurled a series of expletives at him and refused to lower the volume of the music.
Persaud had told the court that as he stood conversing with a friend in front of his yard, he heard the friend exclaim, “Anil run! Boy coming with a cutlass!”
He had said he did not run at that time and just as he turned towards the direction from which his attacker was coming, he encountered the man swinging a cutlass in front of him.
In the midst of inflicting numerous broadsides, Persaud said that Boodram chopped him twice on the head and once to his left thumb as he tried to bar the chops. He showed the court the scars which he said were the result of the attack.
Persaud said he fell to the ground and remembered clearly seeing the accused standing over, and still broadsiding him, moments before losing consciousness. He later woke in the Georgetown Public Hospital.
He recalled being hospitalised for some six months, during which time he had to undergo several surgeries and had to do numerous follow-up treatments.
The defence contended, however, that it was Boodram who was attacked by Persaud and another person.
According to Thomas, the other person in whose company Persaud was at the time, had been wielding the cutlass at Boodram but it missed and connected with Persaud instead, resulting in the injuries he sustained.
Under cross-examination, the complainant disagreed with counsel’s suggestion that it was a fight and that he was injured during a scuffle.
He also disagreed with Thomas’ suggestion that he was armed and that he was “making up the story” maintaining that it was Boodram who had chopped him.
