Lawyer consults convicted killer in Port of Spain prison with covid19

A CONVICTED killer sentenced to hang in 2017 for a 2006 murder consented on Thursday to have his appeal heard, although he could not be present for the virtual hearing because he is quarantined in prison for covid19.

Anand Boodram, who is appealing his conviction, tested positive for covid19 on October 18. He is quarantined at the Port of Spain prison until November 7.

On Thursday, Boodram’s appeal came up for a virtual hearing before Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Gillian Lucky, and Maria Wilson, when prison officials told the judges he would be unable to be present on the link from the prison’s virtual court facilities.

Boodram’s attorney, Sophia Chote, SC, said she was unaware of her client’s condition but was concerned about the matter proceeding before she could get instructions from him on whether he would object to the appeal's being heard in his absence.

Special prosecutor Travers Sinanan also expressed the same concern.

Told by the judges the lists in the appeal court were inundated and if the matter was adjourned, it was unlikely Boodram would get a date until several months from now, one of his attorneys went to the prison on Frederick Street to try to get instructions.

Junior counsel Peter Carter went to the prison in protective gear to meet with Boodram. Time was allowed for him to do so and an hour later, Carter got instructions from Boodram, who agreed to his appeal going ahead in his absence.

In his appeal, Boodram has advanced six grounds complaining of the trial judge’s handling of his case in 2017.

After close to five hours of submissions by Chote and Sinanan, whom the judges questioned extensively on each ground, the State conceded the conviction was unsafe and the reliability of the trial process had been called into question because of the deficiencies in the trial judge’s directions to the jury on self-defence and provocation.

Sinanan asked for a retrial to be ordered, with an additional order that it be immediately assigned to a judge’s or master’s docket, as had been done in the Marlon King case.

Chote said she did not think this was an appropriate case for a retrial, but wanted time to speak with her client. His covid19 condition and quarantine were taken into consideration and Chote was given a month to advance submissions on a retrial after she gets instructions from Boodram when he ends the 21-day quarantine imposed by the prisons’ doctor.

In the end, the court did not immediately quash Boodram’s conviction, as Chote asked to be able to file submissions on the issue of a retrial.

The judges adjourned the matter for a final decision on November 23.

Sinanan was commended for his concession on the main complaints of the deficiency of the trial judge’s directions to the jury on self-defence and provocation.

Boodram, also called Kundan, was sentenced to hang by Justice Malcolm Holdip in the San Fernando High Court for the murder of Brian "Fatman" Maharaj on December 26, 2006.

Maharaj was shot with a shotgun. It was the prosecution’s case that Maharaj went to Boodram's home, not far from where he lived in Moruga.

Boodram was not home but his relatives called him. When he arrived shortly after, he and Maharaj had an argument in the presence of his uncle. Boodram then left in his car while Maharaj remained at his home, liming with Boodram's uncle and the uncle's friend.

About an hour later, the uncle's friend was in the hammock under the house when he heard a loud explosion.

He then saw Maharaj staggering and holding his chest. He also saw Boodram holding a shotgun.

The next day, Boodram surrendered to the St Mary's police and subsequently took the police to where he had hidden the gun.

He gave the police a statement claiming he was taking care of his animals when Maharaj approached him with a gun.

Boodram, who did not testify at his trial, also claimed Maharaj was very aggressive and hit him on the back of the neck, and during a struggle, he held on to the gun and it went off.

Forensic pathologist Dr Hughvon des Vignes testified that there was no evidence to corroborate Boodram's claim there was a struggle. He said Maharaj's injuries and the lack of gunshot residue on his body suggested that Maharaj was shot from a distance and not at close range.

In his appeal, his attorneys successfully argued the possibility of bias and contamination of the jury, as the trial judge failed to hold an inquiry when an alternate juror, after evidence had been taken, informed a marshal that she knew a witness in the case – the aunt of the deceased.

She said had the judge held an inquiry of the alternate juror, the integrity of the trial process would have been protected, since there were many questions and speculation on the nature of the juror’s relationship with the witness and the extent to which she had any interaction with the main panel.

“The fact is, we needed to see an inquiry done in this case so these questions could have been answered. But we do not know,” Chote submitted.

She also raised the “confusing and conflated” directions given by the judge on self-defence and accident as raised by Boodram at his trial. Chote said the jurors had to consider the two issues separately but they were not given the proper direction to do so.

Chote also said the evidence of the pathologist on distance should not have been allowed, since he admitted in evidence he had no experience with firearms.

“It amounted to a level of speculation,” she submitted.

Chote also raised the issue of Boodram’s right to silence and not testifying at his trial, submitting that the judge failed to direct the jury properly, but allowed them to focus their attention on what he had said in his statements.

She also submitted the issue of character evidence should have been given in this case.