The Court of Appeal will this morning render its ruling in an appeal filed by Lakeraj Fredericks, who is challenging his conviction and 65 years’ jail sentence for the June 2011 murder of his brother-in-law, Clifton Bonus.
Dead: Clifton Bonus
The appellate court comprising Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud had reserved its ruling after concluding arguments in the case last year October.
Bonus was found buried in a shallow grave at Old England Backdam, Linden, Region 10 (Upper Demerara-Berbice), days after he was reported missing.
In April 2017, Fredericks was found guilty of the crime by a jury and it was Justice Navindra Singh who imposed the 65-year jail term.
It was reported that Frederick murdered Bonus called “Mutts” on Saturday, June 4, 2011. The man’s body was found in the shallow grave, buried almost three feet deep beneath groves of cannabis days after he was reported missing. The autopsy proved that he was shot to the head.
Convicted killer: Lakeraj Fredericks
Media reports are that the men argued over marijuana seeds before Bonus was killed. Fredericks is already serving a 22-year jail sentence for the June 11, 2011 unlawful killing of 38-year-old Vernon Romaldo, who was stabbed twice to the chest at Land of Canaan, East Bank Demerara.
He was initially charged with the murder of Romaldo but pleaded guilty to the lesser count of manslaughter in April 2018.
During the appeal hearing, Fredericks’ lawyer, Rachael Bakker, asked the court to overturn her client’s conviction and sentence or reduce the 65-year prison term imposed on him for the killing of Bonus.
She proffered four grounds in support of her case. She contended that Justice Singh erred in law when he admitted a caution statement alleged to have been given by her client to detectives.
Bakker further asked the court to find that the alleged confession statement given by her client was a concoction by the Police to prove their case. She argued that the caution statement was given under duress. From the records of appeal, Bakker submitted that while her client was in custody, he was interrogated by three Police ranks.
The lawyer said that during the trial, someone testified that her client was not given any refreshment or food prior to him being interviewed. She said that all he had was some water during the morning period.
She added that from the evidence of Prison Officer Tuanna Wilson, it can be concluded that her client was assaulted by Police to sign the caution statement, even though he made it clear that he did not know its contents, and did not commit the crime.
In relation to the voir dire which was done to determine the admissibility of the caution statement, Bakker stated that the sworn evidence given by her client was dismissed by Justice Singh. She contended that the Judge should have considered her client’s testimony as it was done while he was under oath.
She further argued that during investigations, detectives failed to carry out a confrontation between Fredericks and a minor, who testified that he took the Police to where Bonus’ body was buried.
The lawyer said that the Judge failed to direct the jury on how to properly deal with the evidence of the minor, and as a result, this amounted to a misdirection since it allowed the jury to be prejudiced by inadmissible and hearsay evidence.
In fact, she submitted that prior to interviewing her client, the Police ranks informed him that he need not say anything because someone had already told them what had transpired.
She told the court that Police went with a prepared statement and asked him questions about where he lived and about his family members so that he would be tricked into signing the statement.
According to her, her client cannot read and only knows how to write his name. In this regard, the lawyer noted that Justice Singh was duty-bound to withdraw the caution statement from the jury as it was not given voluntarily.
She submitted that the Judge’s failure to do so led to a miscarriage of justice.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Diana Kaulesar-O’Brien submitted that Police questioning Frederick was permitted under Part One of the Judges’ Rule.
Also relying on the records of appeal, Kaulesar-O’Brien said that during the voir dire, Fredericks gave sworn testimony as it relates to officers visiting him and signing the statement.
The Assistant DPP further argued that the evidence given by the murder convict does not suggest that he was being interrogated.
As a matter of fact, Kaulesar-O’Brien noted that Frederick testified that the Police ranks asked him “one, one questions.” She said that the trial records prove that the Judge properly addressed the allegations of assault put forward by Frederick.
She contended that the Trial Judge, having evaluated the evidence of the prosecution and defence in the voir dire, made a finding as it relates to the credibility of the caution statement. She reminded that the Judge found that Fredericks was not a credible witness, and rightfully directed the jury to rely on the evidence of the prosecution.
Kaulesar-O’Brien held that the absence of a confrontation between Fredericks and the minor does not affect the admissibility of the caution statement.
She noted that Fredericks’ lawyer at the time made no application for a review of the ruling in the voir dire and that there was no new evidence that would have caused the Trial Judge to question that ruling.
Finally, on the issue of sentencing, Bakker advanced that the 65-year prison term imposed on her client is unduly severe and not in keeping with modern sentencing practices.
While she acknowledged that statutes dictate sentences be imposed for such offences, she said that Guyana’s Criminal Law (Offences) Act is dated.
She noted that while she is aware that it is entirely the discretion of the Trial Judge to impose a sentence, the penalty imposed on her client is not only strenuous to him but also taxpayers.
In closing, Bakker pointed out that modern sentencing guidelines would not allow for a sentence of 65 years to be imposed for murder.
Nevertheless, she said that her client is throwing himself at the mercy of the court to exercise its discretion in reducing the sentence to one that is fair to the system and his rehabilitation.
Kaulesar-O’Brien conceded that there is no indication as to how Justice Singh arrived at a base of 60 years for the sentence imposed.
