CoA orders retrial for accused in 2014 Skull City murder

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of Guyana on Wednesday ordered a retrial in the case of Vishawantie Ragnauth and her reputed husband Nyron Thakurdyal, who have both been found guilty of the murder of Ragnauth’s uncle, 39-year-old Sunil Ramsundar, in June 2018.
That killing occurred on Boxing Day of 2014 at Skull City in Patentia, West Bank Demerara, and following the guilty verdicts, the two were each sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment by Demerara High Court Judge Sandil Kissoon.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the convicts had, through Attorneys-at-Law Nigel Hughes and Narissa Leander, lodged appeals against their convictions and sentences.
In their grounds of appeal, they had, among other things, contended that Justice Kissoon had failed to put to the jury the defence of accident, the defence of self defence, and the defence of provocation; and that if he had so done, the verdicts might have been different.

The convicts had also argued that the Judge had failed to put the option of the lesser offence of manslaughter to the jury.
In delivering the CoA’s unanimous judgement, acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, said there was evidence to support that Thakurdyal had acted in self defence, since he had entered an ensuing argument between his wife and her uncle in order to protect his wife.
According to the Chancellor, the trial Judge had a duty to put these defences and the issue of manslaughter to the jury, because they were issues of fact for the jury to decide on. Justice Kissoon’s failure to do this, she held, amounted to misdirection, and consequently rendered the convictions unsafe.

In the interest of justice, the CoA quashed the convictions and remitted the case to the January 2023 Demerara Criminal Assizes for a retrial, after having taken into consideration the strength of the prosecution’s case and the seriousness of the offence.
Given the approach adopted by the CoA, there was no need for the Judges to review the pair’s appeal against their sentence, which they had argued was manifestly excessive.
Thakurdyal, a father of six, had, however, passed away in jail.
Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory-Barnes and Rishi Persaud also comprised the bench, while Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Natasha Bakker, presented the State’s case.

Facts
The facts of the matter stated that Ramsundar was killed after he attempted to settle a dispute between his sister, his niece, and his niece’s reputed husband.
At about 22:00h on that fateful day, Ramsundar’s sister was assaulted by her daughter – Ragnauth – and her partner, Thakurdyal. Ramsundar had had asked his sister why she was crying, and upon learning about the assault, had approached his niece for an explanation.
However, a heated argument had quickly ensued, during which Ramsundar was stabbed about his body.
It was reported that Thakurdyal had held Ramsundar down while Ragnauth had stabbed him. Ramsundar had collapsed on the spot, and was pronounced dead on arrival at the West Demerara Regional Hospital. After the duo had stabbed Ramsundar, they had reportedly run away and flagged down a passing car. That vehicle happened to be that of an off-duty Policeman, who reportedly heard Thakurdyal telling someone via his cell phone that he had just “jook up” someone.
The cop had driven them to the Wales Police Station, where they were subsequently arrested. At the time of his arrest, the late Thakurdyal was reportedly found with a knife in his possession.
Meanwhile, the pathologist had, in his testimony, given Ramsundar’s cause of death as shock and haemorrhage, and a stab wound to the neck. The pathologist had told the jury that there were also injuries to Ramsundar’s right forearm, right chest, left part of the neck, and jaw; and had noted that a puncture to an artery had caused excessive blood loss.
A Probation Report presented to the court back in 2018 had revealed that Thakurdyal had migrated with his family to the United States in 1985, but was deported on a narcotics-possession charge in 2003. He had then lived for nine years in the Bahamas, where he had done construction work.
Another Probation Report had stated that Ragnauth, a mother of three, whose past was described as “abusive”, had been verbally and physically abusive to her partners; and during her second relationship, her husband, whom she had married according to Hindu rites, had fled the home due to her abusive nature.

Appeal hearing
Given what had transpired on that fateful day, defence Attorney Narissa Leander had argued, the defence of provocation was available. She had submitted, “There was sufficient evidence on which the Judge ought to have put the defence of provocation to the jury; provocation did arise. The Judge ought to have directed the jury on how to treat that bit of evidence, given a finding that [Ragnauth] was reasonably provoked. The Judge failed to give the jury any directions on that issue. It is our submission that the failure to give those directions resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”
In relation to the defence of accident, counsel had argued that Justice Kissoon had failed to direct the jury on how to treat this defence. To make her point, she had said that her client is maintaining that Ramsundar came about his injuries as a result of falling onto a fence. Leander had reminded that during the couple’s trial, a pathologist had testified that the fatal injury Ramsundar had received to his neck could have been caused if he had fallen onto a fence which had an object protruding.
In light of the doctor’s opinion, Leander submitted that the trial Judge had failed to analyse this piece of evidence in his summation. She had further said that Justice Kissoon did not direct the jury that it was not for the defence to establish that the injury was accidentally sustained, but rather for the prosecution to negate that defence.
According to Leander, an eyewitness had testified to seeing Ragnauth and her husband cuffing away at Ramsundar. She, however, had pointed out that the witness did not testify to seeing the couple armed with a knife or any other weapon. “Based on the injuries in the post-mortem report, we contend that those injuries are not consistent with what the eyewitness said… If she [the eyewitness] saw all of these cuffing motions and the State is contending that a knife was used, there would have been more than one stab wound based on the eyewitness’s testimony,” Leander had argued. (G1)