CCJ denies ex-GDF soldiers’ application to appeal murder conviction

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Thursday denied special leave applications made by two former Guyana Defence Force (GDF) Coast Guard ranks who in 2013 were found guilty of robbing and murdering a civilian.
Coast Guard ranks Sherwyn Harte, Deon Greenidge and Devon Gordon were sentenced to death by Justice Franklyn Holder in 2013 after being found guilty of throwing overboard gold miner Dwieve Kant Ramdass of Bartica, Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni), following their having robbed him of $17 million.
While the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions in 2022, the original death sentences were vacated and replaced by life sentences, with tariffs requiring the men to serve 18 years in prison before being eligible for parole.
Harte and Greenidge had both sought leave to appeal the sentence imposed on them by the Court of Appeal, and to challenge the constitutionality of the death penalty, while Greenidge had also sought permission to appeal his conviction altogether.
Greenidge posited that the evidence against him consisted solely of the contents of his caution statement, which did not disclose any prior plan to murder or participate in the murder of Ramdass.
In a judgment authored by Justice Winston Anderson and delivered by Justice Adrian Saunders, the CCJ dismissed Greenidge’s individual appeal, stating that he did not establish any realistic possibility that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
“There was ample evidence in the caution statement and the circumstantial evidence on which a jury, properly directed, could have reached the conclusion that Greenidge was party to the joint enterprise to rob and murder the deceased,” Justice Sanders said.
The Court also noted that there was no evidence of any attempt by Greenidge to assist the deceased when he was in distress, or otherwise to disassociate himself from participating in the crime.
Regarding constitutionality of the death penalty, the Court also found that Harte and Greenidge faced no threat of execution, so the arguments raised on this issue were solely academic in nature.
“The Court reaffirmed its decision…that it will only hear academic appearances in specified exceptional circumstances. The current application did not fall under those exceptional circumstances,” Justice Saunders said.
Harte and Greenidge also took issue with some of the reasoning of the Court of Appeal regarding the death penalty being a “saved law” from the colonial era. The three ex-GDF officers had been convicted under the unamended Section 100 of the Criminal Law Offences Act (CLOA).
The CCJ reminded that it had indicated clear views on the issue of the savings clause, and naturally, if there is any variance between those views and the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, the views of the CCJ must prevail.
Harte and Greenidge also contended that the Court of Appeal did not adhere to the proper sentencing methodology in vacating the death penalty and imposing life sentences with tariffs.
“In the present case, the offenders were members of the Guyana Defence Force who robbed and murdered an innocent citizen. There is no ground for regarding a sentence imposed as excessive, or so manifestly outside the mainstream of sentences,” Justice Saunders said.
Additionally, Justice Saunders pointed out that the Court of Appeal had imposed the minimum sentence mandated under the CLOA, and therefore the applicants had no basis for complaint.
As such, the applications for special leave were dismissed with no orders as to costs.