Prosecutor defends life sentence imposed on murder convict

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Dionne McCammon on Monday defended a ruling by Justice Jo-Ann Barlow which imposed a life sentence with the possibility of parole after serving 25 years on murder convict, Dhupaul Singh.
Following a trial in 2016, Singh, also called “Tailor Man”, was found guilty by a 12-member jury of the September 2, 2014 murder of Balkissoon, called, “Balky”.
It was reported that the killing occurred at Helena Number Two Village, Mahaica, East Coast Demerara.
On the day in question, Singh and Balkissoon, a farmer, were involved in a heated argument over remarks hurled by Singh at the now dead man. The row escalated into a scuffle during which Singh chopped Balkissoon about his body with a cutlass.
Singh, through his lawyer, Mark Conway, has appealed against his conviction and sentence. Among other things, the convicted killer argued Justice Barlow erred in law in giving the jury the summation on provocation. He further argued that his sentence is excessive.
When the appeal hearing continued on Monday before Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud, McCammon argued that the sentence imposed on Singh is duly served.
The prosecutor pointed to the aggravating circumstances, especially the fact that Balkissoon’s head was almost severed at the hands of Singh. She said that a cutlass was used to inflict the fatal injury. According to McCammon, a pathologist testified that great force had to be used to inflict such an injury.
“The aggravating factors support the sentence given by the Trial Judge. The Trial Judge did not find any mitigating factors relative to the offence, but there were relative to the offence,” she contended.
She submitted that under the laws of Guyana, murder is punishable by the death penalty, and as such, Justice Barlow used her discretionary power to impose a life sentence in this case.

Arguing that the sentence is not excessive, the prosecutor added that Singh would be given a chance after 25 years to be reintegrated into society. McCammon submitted that the principles of sentencing including retribution, deterrent, rehabilitation and incapacitation were considered in this case.
Meanwhile, like in previous submissions, Conway maintained that the sentence imposed on his client was excessive and not in keeping with established sentencing guidelines.
During his submissions on Monday, the defence lawyer argued that his client was robbed of a conviction of manslaughter because the Judge’s summation to the jury was lacking.
Among other things, Conway argued that the sentence imposed did not reflect the principles outlined in the case of R v da Costa Hall in which it is stated that full credit should be given for any time spent on remand.
Opining that the appeal against the severity of the sentence for the offence of murder has merit, Conway pointed out that in imposing the sentence, the Trial Judge failed to apply case law principles that promote fairness in sentencing.
“It is respectfully submitted that sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment and becoming only eligible for parole after serving 25 years given facts of the offence as presented and the failure to apply established principles of sentencing rendered this sentence unjustified and manifestly excessive,” the defence attorney added.
The Court of Appeal will hear further arguments in this case on November 30, 2020, at 10:00h.