Grove man who chopped neighbour during argument over loud music appeals life sentence

Andy Boodram, the Grove, East Bank Demerara resident who was sentenced to life imprisonment back in 2018 for the offence of felonious wounding — over the chopping of his neighbour, who had asked him to lower the volume of the music he was playing — has mounted an appeal against his conviction and prison term.
The now 37-year-old man, a father of three, had initially been indicted by State prosecutors 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”.
When the Court of Appeal opened arguments in the matter on Tuesday at its Kingston, Georgetown courtroom, one of Boodram’s lawyers, Kim Kyte-Thomas, 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 would be five years’ imprisonment.
To support her argument, Kyte-Thomas 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 Kyte-Thomas, who amplified on written submissions made on the appellant’s behalf.
For her part, acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, one of the three Judges who heard the case, 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 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, also argued that the trial Judge 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, 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 argued 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 told the appellate court, 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,” said the prosecutor in recounting the facts.
At the close of arguments, the Court of Appeal reserved its ruling for a later date.
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.
Boodram, also known as “Boy”, was found guilty of chopping the victim, Deonarine 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 Boodram’s 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”.
Afterwards, the victim told the court, he was speaking with a woman called “Shirley”, who shouted: “Anil, run! ‘Boy’ 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 accused, and was dealt a chop 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 by Boodram’s lawyer Thomas, 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.