CCJ to deliberate on whether Ramcharran rape sentence was excessive
On the 23 years imposed upon him for the rape and vicious beating of a woman, Calvin Ramcharran holds the view that the sentence is “manifestly excessive,” especially when considered against what is generally imposed in cases comparable to his and precedent.
This was the main thrust of the argument presented on his behalf by defence attorney Nigel Hughes when his matter came up for hearing yesterday morning before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
By a majority of 11 to 1, a jury back in 2015 found Ramcharran guilty as charged of the 2012 rape of the woman whom he also beat during the act.
Trial Judge Jo-Ann Barlow had sentenced Ramcharran to 23 years for the rape and three years for the physical assault. She ordered that the sentences be served concurrently.
To his appeal before the
Guyana Court of Appeal, acting Chancellor Yonette CummingsEdwards had said that given the requirements of modern sentencing guidelines, the only shortcoming found on the part of the trial judge was that there was nothing indicating how she had arrived at the sentences.
Given the aggravating factors, however, especially the beating that the complainant suffered during the sexual assault, the appellate court had said that the sentences imposed were just.
Before the Trinidad-based court of last resort yesterday, however, Hughes said when looking at case law precedent set by the CCJ itself, the local courts failed to conform to sentencing guidelines established therein.
While acknowledging the repugnance of sexual offences, Hughes said that given the case law precedent of Pompey vs. the State in which the complainant was a child, he would have thought that the sentence against his client—where the complainant was an adult—would have been lower.
From the case of Pompey which had itself gone before the CCJ—and which dominated the submissions yesterday—Hughes held the view that the principle which ought to apply in Ramcharran’s case was not only establishing the base, but whether the penalty imposed by the trial judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, was not excessive.
Using Pompey as a guide, Hughes advanced for the Court’s consideration that if it were to be said that the base was 10 years which is five years less than the rape of a minor, then the sentence imposed on Ramcharran would have been more than twice the starting base.
He opined, however, that the difficulty with the decisions regarding the sentence imposed upon his client by both the trial judge and the appellate court was compounded by the absence of any reasons.
He quoted an extract from Pompey which said that where the sentencing court does not disclose the reasons for its sentencing, it becomes difficult to defend the sentence being just and that there is simply no material with which to defend the sentence.
From Pompey, he said that defending such a sentence is difficult where there is no pre-sentencing report and no victim impact statement. In the absence of such materials and reasons, Hughes reminded from Pompey, where the CCJ had itself ruled that a sentence of 37 years in that case—whether rightly or wrongly imposed, has the appearance as though it had been “plucked out of thin air.”
Hughes took issue with the Guyana Court of Appeal which he said referenced Pompey to the extent that it noted that a complaint it had with Justice Barlow’s sentence was the fact that she did not show the process by which she arrived at the sentence given the modern guidance on sentencing.
He said that having so identified, the appellate court failed to then illustrate how the absence of the process used to arrive at the sentence, did not adversely impact his client.
Meanwhile, in her address to the court, Assistant Director of