New trial ordered for man accused of killing his friend on Boxing Day in 2006

A Moruga man who successfully petitioned the Court of Appeal to quash his conviction for the 2006 Boxing Day murder of his friend will face a new trial.

Last month, the State conceded the directions given by the judge to the jury on self-defense and provocation at Anand “Kundan” Boodram’s trial were fundamentally flawed.

At the time, Justices Mark Mohammed, Gillian Lucky, and Maria Wilson did not immediately quash Boodram’s conviction but invited further submissions on the issue of a retrial and adjourned their decision.

On Tuesday, they gave their decision, quashing Boodram’s conviction and ordering a retrial.

In January 2017, Boodram was convicted of murdering Brian “Fatman” Maharaj.

According to the evidence in his trial, Maharaj went to Boodram’s home and the two had an argument in the presence of Boodram’s uncle. Boodram allegedly left in his car and Maharaj continued to lime with Boodram’s uncle and his friend. About an hour later, the uncle’s friend heard a loud explosion and saw Maharaj, who had walked away, staggering as he held his chest. The friend also allegedly saw Boodram holding a shotgun.

Boodram eventually surrendered to police and claimed that it was Maharaj, who approached him with the gun. He claimed that Maharaj was very aggressive and hit him behind the neck and during a struggle, he held on to the gun and it went off wounding Maharaj.

On the factors the court took into consideration in ordering a retrial, Wilson, who delivered the decision, said there was no dispute murder was a “serious and prevalent” offence.

“On almost a daily basis we are confronted with one or more murders often making the headlines on the front page of daily newspapers.

“Up until a couple of days ago, the headlines in one of the dailies was ‘Deaths over a woman,’ and in another, ‘They killed each other,’ referring to the murder of two men.”

Boodram’s attorney, Sophia Chote, SC, in her submission on the ordering of a retrial – she was against it – provided statistics that there have been inordinate delays in retrials for murder cases.

She quoted from 2013/2014-2020/2021 law term opening addresses to show there were 14 criminal appeals which resulted in retrials being ordered during that period and only two of them were dealt with and the accused pleaded guilty.

Of those two cases, one was five years after the retrial was ordered and the other two years after.

Wilson said the statistics provided by Chote reflected that some accused were waiting for retrials some six years after one was ordered, but noted that while they may appear alarming, they did not reflect the full picture.

“What these statistics do not address is the reason for the delays. Is the State machinery responsible or is it the defence that might have delayed the commencement of a new trial because he or she preferred his or her case to be tried by a particular attorney or for some other reason?

“These statistics do not address the reason or reasons why these cases have not been retried.”

She said the statistics examined the issue of delay through a limited quantitative lens but not through “the equally important qualitative lens.

"This panel agrees that there has been a backlog in the trial of cases in the criminal justice system.”

She said they also took judicial notice of the significant changes in the criminal justice system that was likely to increase the number of cases being tried.

These include the establishment of the public defender’s department; the introduction of Masters in the criminal division to assist trial judges in case management; the introduction of the docket system, and the introduction of judge-only trials.

“These are but some of the changes that have been introduced to address frontally the backlogs in the system. We therefore do not agree that the statistics support the proposition that there will automatically be an inordinate delay…”

Noting that some 15 years had passed since the date of the alleged offence, the 11 years from the first trial and the three years between conviction and appeal, Wilson admitted there was a backlog and delays in the case.

However, she said with the changes in the system, retrials ought to take place faster than in the past.

The State was represented by special prosecutor Travers Sinanan who was “highly commended" by the judges for “acting as a true minister of justice” when he conceded that the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury.

Also representing Boodram, who has since come out of quarantine for covid19, and was on the virtual court link from the Port of Spain prison, was attorney Peter Carter.