EBD man appealing life sentence for felonious wounding to know fate on Wednesday

Andy Boodram, the Grove, East Bank Demerara (EBD) resident who appealed against the life sentence imposed on him for felonious wounding — over the chopping of his neighbour, who had asked him to lower the volume of the music — will know his fate on Wednesday.
The Court of Appeal has set May 7 to deliver its ruling on Boodram’s appeal, which it had heard earlier this year, against his conviction and jail term.

The now 38-year-old man, a father of three, had initially been indicted by the State for attempted murder, but the jury, in March 2018, found him not guilty of that offence, and instead convicted him on the alternative count of felonious wounding. The victim is Deonarine Persaud, called “Anil”.
During arguments, one of Boodram’s lawyers, Dr Kim Kyte-Thomas, had asked the Judges to revisit the sentence imposed on her client, stating that felonious wounding is usually an offence that is tried in the Magistrate’s Court, where the maximum sentence is five years’ imprisonment.
To support her argument, she relied on a case, Bowman vs Marques, in which she said the Court of Appeal found that 59 months in prison was a reasonable punishment for felonious wounding. That sentence, which was initially imposed by a Magistrate, was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
“Regularly in the Magistrate’s Court, this is to ensure that we have consistency in our jurisprudence, the sentence awarded for this offence will be either a fine or between six to 18 months in prison. We believe that this [life] sentence was unreasonable and excessive in all the circumstances of the case, and we, therefore, urge this court to find that our client has already paid his due to society, having already served 60 months, or five calendar years [in prison],” averred Dr Kyte-Thomas, while amplifying on written submissions.

For her part, acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, one of the three Judges who heard the case, had pointed out that Boodram was charged under Section 57 (a) of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, which stipulates a sentence of imprisonment for life for anyone convicted of felonious wounding.
While they were in court to do justice, she said, a distinction has to be drawn between the instant case and Bowman and Marques, and the fact that Boodram’s matter was taken indictably before a Judge and jury, and not summarily before a Magistrate only.
In reply, the defence lawyer submitted that Bowman vs Marques was a premeditated robbery and that during the course of that robbery, there was felonious wounding, and a finger was even severed; while the instant case was a fight between two grown men over loud music.
Chancellor Cummings-Edwards, in replying, noted that Bowman vs Marques was tried by a Magistrate who was constrained by law to give that sentence.
Boodram’s other lawyer, George Thomas, in arguing for his conviction to be set aside, had submitted the trial Judge, Navindra Singh erred in law when he admitted the oral statements to form part of the evidence, which he then relied upon in giving directions to the jury.
Meanwhile, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Mercedes Glasford had asked the court to affirm Boodram’s conviction, submitting, “This court should affirm the conviction which was arrived at by the jury. They [the jurors] were properly directed by the trial Judge.”
On the issue of sentencing, Glasford had contended that the trial Judge had the necessary information before him, including the facts, and a plea in mitigation was made by defence counsel. As such, she had told the local appellate court that it must determine whether, in all of the circumstances and the facts of this case, the sentence was excessive, and whether the correct principles were applied in arriving at the sentence.
“Based on the evidence, it was an argument; but the complainant [Persaud] would have been around his car, and he was turning in the opposite direction, and when he looked around, the cutlass came in connection with his head. He received injuries, was hospitalised, and had surgeries done. So, this was a very violent attack,” she had said in recounting the facts.
Besides the Chancellor, Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory-Barnes and Rishi Persaud also heard this appeal, while Abiola Wong-Inniss was the other defence lawyer.

Background
Boodram, also known as “Boy”, was found guilty of chopping Persaud in the head following a trial before Justice Navindra Singh and a mixed 12-member jury at the High Court in Demerara. The jury returned its verdict on March 29, 2018, and Boodram was sentenced that same day.
The chopping incident took place on September 24, 2011.
During the trial, Persaud had testified that Boodram, whom he had known about nine months prior to the incident, operated a shop, and would play music to entertain his customers.
However, Persaud said he came outside and asked Boodram to lower the volume of the music, as he and his wife had a young child. He claimed that they exchanged expletives for 15 minutes after Boodram told him that he was not “turning down no [expletive] music”.
Afterward, the victim told the court, he was speaking with a woman called “Shirley”, who shouted to him: “Anil, run! ‘Boy’ [Boodram] coming with a cutlass!”
He said that he did not run at the said time, but when he turned around, he saw “Boy” swinging the cutlass. Persaud noted that after he was chopped to the right side of his head, he used his hand to block the chops, thus resulting in injuries to his hand.
“‘Boy’ continued to broadside me even when I fell to the ground on my back,” he noted. He added that he lost consciousness, and only regained his senses at the Georgetown Public Hospital. He said he was hospitalised until October 4, 2011, with regular check-ups after.
He added that he also had surgery six months after to fit three pieces of his skull that were preserved in his stomach back into place. He noted that swelling in his head had prevented doctors from immediately conducting the corrective procedure.
Under cross-examination, Persaud admitted that he became angry when the accused did not want to turn down his music. He, however, maintained that he did not attack Boodram.