Tag: Rajiv Persad

Princes Town couple get 29 yrs for ex-fireman's murder

A PRINCES TOWN couple who killed the woman’s previous abusive boyfriend have been sentenced to a total of 29 years for their roles in the businessman’s murder.

Dwayne Baldeo and Renee Mohammed were sentenced by Justice Mauricia Joseph-Patrick in the San Fernando High Court for the October 28, 2020, murder of Christopher Hosein.

Hosein, 45, a businessman, who resigned from the Fire Service about ten years ago, lived at St James Street in Princes Town. There, he ran his business, Expert Fire and Safety Ltd. A farmer found his burnt body near his burnt Kia Sorento in a gravel road off the M1 Tasker Road in the Ste Madeleine police district. A yellow rope was tied around Hosein’s neck, his hands were bound, and his eyes were covered with duct tape.

Police investigations quickly focused on Baldeo and Mohammed after CCTV footage, witness accounts, and forensic evidence linked them to Hosein’s apartment. A white Toyota Fielder wagon driven by Baldeo was intercepted later that day, and items belonging to the deceased were recovered. A post-mortem examination determined that Hosein died from a combination of asphyxia, inhalation of soot, burns, and blunt force trauma to the head.

Baldeo and Mohammed both pleaded guilty to murder on the basis of felony murder under a plea agreement with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The agreement followed their indictment on June 18, 2024, for Hosein’s murder of Hosein. In sentencing the two, Justice Joseph-Patrick adopted a starting point of 33 years’ imprisonment for both. Baldeo benefited from a downward adjustment of three years for his conduct while incarcerated. A further one-third reduction was applied for his guilty plea, amounting to ten years. After also taking into account time already spent on remand of almost five years, Joseph-Patrick imposed a final sentence of a little over 15 years’ imprisonment.

Baldeo was represented by Rajiv Persad, SC, and Ajesh Summesar.

Mohammed’s starting point was also reduced by three years for remorse and positive conduct in prison. An additional one-year reduction was granted in light of her background, personal history, and immaturity at the time of the offence. She was 23 at the time. A further one-third reduction for her guilty plea, amounting to nine years and eight months,was applied. After credit for time spent in custody, Mohammed received a final sentence of slightly over 14 years’ imprisonment.

She was represented by attorneys Michelle Ali and Kameika Peters of the Public Defenders’ Department.

In an affidavit placed before the court, Mohammed described a deeply troubled personal history, including childhood sexual abuse and a turbulent, on-and-off relationship with Hosein. She said aspects of that relationship caused past trauma to resurface and contributed to her emotional state at the time.

Mohammed admitted she and Baldeo were also in a tumultuous relationship. He helped her and her mother financially and with errands. She said it was never her intuition to lead him on, but she now realises she was wrong for entertaining his advances. She detailed incidents in which she alleged he had previously assaulted her, leading to serious injuries and extended hospitalisation.

According to Mohammed, after her release from hospital she moved in with Hosein due to her physical condition and financial dependence. She said she also suffered abuse by Hosein while recovering from her injuries.

She claimed that she later disclosed her experiences to Baldeo, who offered to “rough up” Hosein. She admitted accepting that offer and helping to plan the encounter, but maintained that she did not intend or expect Hosein to die.

“I understand that I was a party in the act that caused the deceased to die,” Mohammed stated, “but I had no intention or knowledge that he was going to die.”

She described the past five years in custody as “a nightmare” and expressed remorse for her actions.

State defends 5 convictions in Dr Koury murder trial

PROSECUTORS have begun presenting arguments opposing the appeal of five men convicted of the 2005 murder of businessman Dr Eddie Koury.

The five are arguing they were denied a fair trial in 2019.

Shawn James, Caleb Donaldson, Jerome Murray, Terry Moore, and Robert Franklyn were found guilty in December 2019, and sentenced to hang for Koury’s murder.

On April 3, their attorneys began presenting arguments before Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Maria Wilson, and Ronnie Boodoosingh. On April 4, attorneys Mario Merritt and Evans Welch closed off submissions on behalf of their clients.

Attorneys for the men complain of multiple alleged missteps by the trial judge, including failure to properly direct the jury on critical legal and evidential matters.

Their arguments focused on conflicting medical opinions on Koury’s cause of death – decapitation versus stab wounds – and said the judge did not adequately guide the jury on how this affected key legal issues such as joint enterprise and felony murder. They have also argued the evidence supported a plan to kidnap and rob, not to kill.

Attorneys further challenged the judge’s refusal to dismiss a juror while they have also complained about the forensic evidence, DNA linking Koury’s blood to three accused, and James’ detailed confession.

In his submissions, special prosecutor Wayne Rajbansie said despite the complaints, “the fact remains, Dr Koury is dead and the five appellants are ultimately responsible for his demise.”

He also explained why there were two autopsies done and why the state opted to use the evidence of histopathologist Dr Shaeeda Barrow as opposed to state pathologist Dr Hughvon des Vignes, who was called by the defence at the trial.

“We relied on her evidence because of its completeness.”

Rajbansie insisted all five men “played specific roles in this joint enterprise.”

He also said none of them can rely on James’ confession statement to plead their innocence.

He also took the judges through the prosecution’s evidence, linking the men to the murder.

“There were clear discernible roles of all appellants that led to a full joint enterprise, starting with the robbery, the wounding and kidnapping which eventually led to his death.”

A two-day appeal turned into a three-day appeal which continues on April 10, with a possible fourth day being put aside for further submissions and replies.

The men are represented by Rajiv Persad, SC, Karunaa Bisramsingh, Shane Patience; Wayne Sturge and Danielle Rampersad, Gabriel Hernandez, and Daniel Khan.

Assistant DPP Danielle Thompson also appears with Rajbansie for the state.

Local attorneys: New UK PM a champion for human rights

NEWLY-ELECTED British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, KC, has been hailed as a champion of human rights in the Caribbean region by several members of the local law fraternity, with which Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions (DPP) in the UK, has strong ties.

Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, became prime minister after the UK general election on July 4. He takes over from Rishi Sunak, who stepped down as prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party after a massive defeat that saw his party, also known as the Tories, lose over 200 parliamentary seats. Labour made a corresponding gain.

A strong connection with Trinidad and Tobago

Rajiv Persad, head of Allum Chambers in Port of Spain, said he has known Starmer for over 25 years. He described Starmer as a passionate lawyer who enjoyed criminal law from both the defence and prosecution sides.

“My first case with him was in 1997, where we represented a housewife in Trinidad and Tobago charged for murder. Her name was Ann-Marie Boodram. Keir and the chamber were able to persuade the Privy Council that this woman suffered a miscarriage of justice, having been convicted of murder,” he said. “I was a young lawyer – I must have been out about two or three years. So as a young lawyer, getting to be exposed to these people, it was a great opportunity.”

Starmer worked closely with Allum Chambers, being based there whenever he was in Trinidad and Tobago. Persad said he was well regarded in the Privy Council for his work in human rights in the late 90s and early 2000s, particularly in challenging the mandatory death sentence.

Starmer gave his services pro bono in several regional cases involving the death penalty. One of the more notable ones was the 2004 Barbados case of Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph v the Queen. The Privy Council held that the mandatory death penalty was protected by the “savings clause” in the country’s Constitution.

Thanks to the work of Starmer and a team of lawyers representing people facing hanging, the Board of the Privy Council ruled that the mandatory death penalty constituted inhuman or degrading treatment. But it maintained that it was Parliament’s responsibility to get rid of a mandatory death penalty, not the courts’.

Douglas Mendes, SC, who also worked with Starmer on the anti-death-penalty cases, also described him as an attorney of the highest calibre and devoted to human rights.

“The fact that he was doing human-rights work pro bono in the Caribbean would give you an idea of his outlook. He was willing to spend the time to ensure the rights given in the Constitution are upheld.”

Mendes added that the fact Starmer worked mostly on death-penalty cases, ensuring human rights were afforded to people whom the rest of society had rejected, also showed his devotion to the cause.

Starmer was also involved in other high-profile cases. Persad said he led Allum Chambers and other attorneys in one of the many matters involving businessmen Ish Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson and the Piarco Airport corruption issue, representing the two in extradition matters.

“He has had a really long history with TT,” Persad said.

Teaching human rights

Newsday understands Starmer addressed the Hugh Wooding Law School in 2011. At that time, he was Britain’s DPP. He told law students a prosecutor has a broader role as an official of the law court than simply being an advocate for the state. He said they had the role of advising the police, ensuring evidence is lawful, ensuring a fair trial and upholding the rights of victims and witnesses.

Persad said even long before 2011, Starmer came to Trinidad and Tobago and the wider region to train Caribbean lawyers on the death penalty and fair-trial rights. He even imparted knowledge to members of the Privy Council on human rights.

He also lectured the Criminal Bar Association at the Hall of Justice, discussing the topic: “Must the prosecution of criminal cases be at the expense of human rights?”

He told lawyers at that seminar there needed to be a balance between respecting human rights and prosecuting offenders.

As DPP in the UK, Starmer also worked closely with the government and the Trinidad and Tobago DPP, through the British High Commission, to help provide support and expertise in the prosecution of cases in Trinidad and Tobago.

“His position was that legal process had to be done with the constitution of whatever country you were dealing with,” Persad said.

A measured leader

Both Persad and Mendes lauded Starmer’s measured and analytical approach to decision-making, which, they said, would make for a good leader.

“The fact that he is such an experienced lawyer, you can expect that he would adopt a very analytical approach to any problem he would have to deal with and work out all the arguments for and against and make the best decision,” Mendes said.

“One of the things I have always admired about Keir was his measured, proportionate approach to dealing with issues,” Persad added. “He has this ability to look at an issue and examine it and try to make the fairest decision in his view. That, I think, is always something that you want in a leader.”

Mendes also suggested his history as a human-rights lawyer may influence Starmer’s approach to foreign policy. He said it would influence his approach to the promotion of human rights in Britain and his approach to foreign policy.

“It’s being reflected in the things he is saying,” Mendes added. “He is obviously on the side of the marginalised; he is obviously concerned about ordinary working people and how their lives are being affected, and what government can do for them.”

Starmer himself comes from a working-class background.

In his inaugural speech, he told the British population: “Whether you voted Labour or not – in fact especially if you did not – I say to you, directly: My government will serve you….

“Politics can be a force for good,” he said.

“We have changed the Labour Party and brought it back to service. And that is how we will govern. Country first, party second.”

He said a change in Britain would require politicians focused on public service, stability and moderation.

“For too long now, we have turned a blind eye as millions slid into greater insecurity…I want to say very clearly to those people – not this time.”

“Changing a country is not like flicking a switch,” he added. “The world is now a more volatile place. This will take a while. But have no doubt that the work of change begins – immediately.”

Praise from UNC leader

In a media release on July 5, Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, SC, congratulated Starmer on becoming the 58th British prime minister. She recalled working with him in his role as UK DPP.

“Having shared a very cordial professional relationship with Starmer, I can say with utmost confidence that the new tasks of his premiership will undoubtedly be aided by his long experience as a barrister specialising in human rights issues, his dynamic public service leading the Crown Prosecution Service as DPP and his people-centred representation of the constituency of Holborn and St Pancras.

“Truly, Sir Keir’s impressive track record of legal expertise, combined with his humility, his unmatched spirit of public service and commendable instinct to assist all persons and countries the world over to achieve their social and legal strengths, sets the platform for a premiership that promises to not only deliver holistic, progressive development for the UK but the world as a whole.”

Ex-AG John Jeremie, Justice Henderson tipped for Appeal Court

Darren Bahaw and Jada Loutoo

News of the appointment of former People’s National Movement (PNM) attorney general John Jeremie, SC, who has been tipped to be sworn in as a member of the Court of Appeal has sent shockwaves among supreme court judges and senior members of the legal fraternity.

Jeremie, who served as attorney general in two PNM administrations between 2003-2007 and again in 2009-2010, has been the subject of criticism over his role in the criminal prosecution of former prime minister Basdeo Panday, former chief justice Satnarine Sharma, prominent vascular surgeon Prof Vijay Naraynsingh and the criminal investigation of former executive chairman of CL Financial Lawrence Duprey.

Judiciary sources said Jeremie was among 12 people who were interviewed by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) in March and was among the two final selections.

The members of the JLSC are Chief Justice Ivor Archie, the chairman, Winston Rudder, chairman of the Public Service Commission, attorney Elton Prescott, SC, Justice of Appeal Charmaine Pemberton and Dr Albert Persaud.

The last phase of the process before his appointment is a security vetting by the Special Branch of the police service which is at an advanced stage, Newsday confirmed.

Newsday contacted several senior members of the legal fraternity for comment but none were willing to respond on the record. Jeremie was contacted via WhatsApp on May 10 but offered no comment.

A source close to Jeremie said the former attorney general had not received any official communication from the Judiciary to confirm his impending appointment but noted Jeremie had not been in active politics for the past 15 years.

In the past, former chief justice Michael de la Bastide had appointed former National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR) acting attorney general Amrika Tiwary-Reddy as a high court judge in 1999. She had been in active politics between in the early 1980s to 1991. Archie appointed Gillian Lucky, a former Congress of the People politician, who was a minister in the office of the attorney general in the People’s Partnership administration, to the bench in 2014. Closer to TT, Sir David Simmons of Barbados was appointed chief justice in 2001 after reitring from active politics that same year. He had served as attorney general in that country on two ocassion between 1985-1986 and 1994-2001.

One senior judge said, on the condition of anonymity, “If accurate, it will be clear that there is an intent to turn the judiciary into a party group.”

Another said, “it is interesting times,” while a third judge said, such an appointment is “bound to cause bacchanal.” Other senior lawyers preferred to comment only after the appointment is made.

Retired appeal court judge Stanley John, who had been close to former chief justice Sharma during his criminal investigation, said, “I have no comment,” in response to a WhatsApp query seeking comment.

Since demitting political office, Jeremie has been employed as a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law at the University of the West Indies, St Augustine. He has an active legal practice through his firm, Alexander, Jeremie and Company, which has received briefs from the State.

The other successful candidate tipped to be promoted to the Court of Appeal is Justice Geoffrey Henderson, a former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and former judge of the International Criminal Court. Henderson crossed swords with Jeremie during his tenure in the Office of DPP.

Details of the exchange between Jeremie and Henderson emerged in several letters disclosed in Parliament under the former UNC administration. The letters identified several instances of alleged overreach by the Office of the Attorney General to the Office of the DPP, a constitutionally independent office, in deciding who should face criminal charges.

Reliable judicial sources disclosed among the other High Court judges who were interviewed by the JLSC, at the service commission’s office along Cipriani Boulevard, Port of Spain, for elevation to the Court of Appeal were Justices Devindra Rampersad, Ricky Rahim, Frank Seepersad, and Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds. Other applicants included Justices Nadia Kangaloo, Avason Quinlan-Williams, Robin Mohammed, Allyson Ramkerrysingh and former temporary judge and member of the Police Service Commission Rajiv Persad.

In the past year, three senior judges of the appeal court have retired before reaching the retirement age – Justices Allan Mendonca, Gregory Smith and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon. Smith was appointed a judge of the appeal court in the Bahamas in October 2023 while Soo Hon became president of the appeal court in Turks and Caicos in March.

At least two other appeal court judges have applied for jobs at other regional courts. The appeal court now comprises 14 judges – Archie, Nolan Bereaux, Prakash Moosai, Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar, Charmaine Pemberton, Gillian Lucky, Mira Dean-Armourer, Vashiest Kokaram, Malcolm Holdip, Maria Wilson, Ronnie Boodoosingh, James Aboud and Carla Brown-Antoine.

Bereaux and Aboud are expected to retire in 2025.

During his first stint as attorney general under the Manning administration, there was a contentious relationship between Jeremie and then DPP Henderson. Jeremie had claimed then chief justice Sharma had approached him to get Henderson not to charge Naraynsingh with the murder of his estranged wife, Dr Chandra Naraynsingh.

Sharma was eventually charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice but the main witness against him, the chief magistrate, Sherman McNicolls, opted not to testify. The charge was discontinued on March 5, 2007.

In 2007, a Commission of Enquiry into the administration of justice chaired by retired Privy Councillor Lord Mustill had called upon Jeremie to clear up allegations that he was a co-conspirator in an elaborate scheme to get a CL Financial company to reimburse McNicolls almost $400,000 in a land transaction which had the effect of tainting the criminal trial of Panday who was before McNicolls on charges of failing to disclose a London bank account to the Integrity Commission.

Mustill had found the imputations coming out of the testimony of McNicolls, accusing Jeremie of colluding with then PNM treasurer Andre Monteil, a former CL Financial executive, had the effect of influencing Panday’s trial.

Jeremie appeared before the tribunal on September 21, 2007, but did not respond to those claims.

Mustill’s report concluded, “There is evidence, the weight of which we are not in a position to assess, that on May 8, 2006, the attorney general had attempted to use the chief magistrate’s first statement as a means of pressuring the chief justice to resign.

In May 2009, the Criminal Bar Association, then headed by attorney Desmond Allum, SC, had written to Henderson, demanding an investigation into whether Jeremie attempted to pervert the course of public justice or misbehaved in public office arising out of his reported involvement in the McNicolls land transaction.

The Privy Council in at least three separate judgments referred to the tainting by apparent political bias in the appeal cases of Sharma, Panday and several business people charged with corruption arising out of the Piarco Airport Development Project.

From death row to freedom for man convicted of 1986 murder

After almost four decades in prison, a man convicted of a 1986 murder has been released.

Glenroy Francis tasted freedom February 29 when Justice Gillian Scotland resentenced him to 32 years and three months for the murder of Ramesh Harrilal on July 19, 1986, in Mt Lambert.

“The prisoner, Glenroy Francis is to be released forthwith,” was the judge’s order.

However, he will have to report to the probation department for supervision for three years.

Scotland’s order was in keeping with another order by Justice Ricky Rahim in April 2023 that those death-row prisoners who had their sentences commuted to life were entitled to be resentenced. This was in keeping with a Privy Council ruling on commuted life sentences for murder convicts in the case of Naresh Boodram.

A similar resentencing exercise took place on Friday by Justice Geoffrey Henderson in the case of nine of the ten men convicted of the murder of Dole Chadee’s brother, Thackoor Boodram, in 1997. After applying sentences ranging from 33-30 years, eight of the nine men were released from prison late Friday night. The ninth has to be resentenced for another murder.

Henderson was part of the two-judge committee – Rahim in the civil division and Henderson in the criminal division – that in April 2023 selected those former death-row inmates who would benefit from the Naresh Boodram ruling. Rahim declared that the imposition of life imprisonment was unconstitutional and unlawful and the cases were docketed to various judges in the criminal division for resentencing.

Francis and two others – Neville Glaude and Keith George – were convicted of Harrilal’s murder on November 30, 1990.

The three went to the man’s home to rob him of his gun and money. He fought back after they accessed his shotgun but was stabbed multiple times by Francis and Glaude. His son was slashed in the face when he tried to help his father. As the father and son managed to get into a bedroom, the men shot through the locked door, hitting Harrilal.

However, it was the multiple stab wounds that killed him, the pathologist said. All three were identified after they were arrested.

At their trial, Glaude claimed he was tricked by police to sign a confession but said he was at home with his children all day.

Francis said he was sea fishing on the night of the murder and was also beaten and made to sign a false confession.

George claimed he was unaware of anything that was happening from May to August 1986 since he was ill and being treated by a psychiatrist during that time. He began to recover in late August and went to work at Toco, far from his home, where the police arrested him.

The State was represented by Stacy Laloo-Chong and Pravesh Ramlochan while Francis was represented by Rajiv Persad, SC, Vanita Ramroop and Ajesh Sumessar.