CoA reduces prison sentence for convicted child rapist

– sentences to run concurrently

The Court of Appeal (CoA) has reduced the total prison sentence for Murphy Noorhan, who was convicted of raping a 10-year-old girl, by ruling that his 20-year sentence should run concurrently rather than consecutively.
This adjustment cuts Noorhan’s prison time from 40 to 20 years. Noorhan was found guilty on two counts of sexual activity involving sexual penetration of a minor which occurred between January 4 and 5, 2013.
During his sentencing on January 8, 2016, Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry imposed 20 years for each count, to be served consecutively. The judge cited the seriousness of the offences, Noorhan’s abuse of trust, and the lasting impact on the victim, who is now approximately 21 years old.

At the trial, prosecutors described Noorhan’s repeated abuse of the child and emphasised the betrayal of his position of trust. Noorhan’s defence attorney argued his innocence, claiming the charges were unsubstantiated. The defence also pointed to a medical report showing no evidence of physical bruising to the victim’s vagina.
Justice Sewnarine-Beharry, however, underscored the prevalence of child sexual abuse and Noorhan’s violation of his role as a protector in justifying her original decision.
At the appeal, Noorhan was represented by attorneys Gwendolyn Bristol and Sarah Martin, who argued that the consecutive nature of the sentences was excessive. They contended that modern sentencing principles call for proportionality and fairness, especially since the offences arose from the same incident.
Prosecutor Natasha Backer opposed the appeal, stating that the original sentences appropriately reflected the gravity of the crimes and the harm inflicted on the victim.
The appellate panel, which included Chancellor of the Judiciary (acting) Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory-Barnes, and Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud, found that while the 20-year sentences were appropriate, they should run concurrently given the circumstances.
This decision effectively halved Noorhan’s prison term, citing that the offences stemmed from the same incident.
As such, Noorhan’s appeal was allowed. The court also ordered that Noorhan be credited for time served.