CCJ to deliberate on whether Ramcharran...

Public Prosecutions, Diana O’Brien, reminded that the case of Pompey dealt with a minor who was the victim.

She said, however, that the State’s contention as it relates to whether a sentence, starting-point or range in relation to an adult victim of a sexual offence should be necessarily lower, would depend primarily on the circumstances of the particular case.

Against this background she said that in Ramcharran’s case, there was the use of excessive violence against his victim which was “more than necessary to commit the offence of rape.”

This she said, along with the other aggravating factors in relation to the commission of the offence, would impact where the startingpoint should fall in Ramcharran’s case.

She noted, too, the appellate court’s observation that sentences for offences such as that for which Ramcharran was convicted—especially where violence was used—are not usually short.

O’Brien said that in relation to what would have been appropriate or whether the sentence of 23 years was manifestly excessive as claimed by the Appellant, the majority of comparable cases in Guyana had not fallen outside of the range of that imposed upon Ramcharran.

She said that guided by legal authorities, the Court of Appeal was right in not interfering with the sentence since it did not find that it was wrong in principle, nor did it consider it to have been manifestly excessive or unjust.

Having heard submissions from both sides, the CCJ has said that it will now consider the arguments and announce at a later date when its decision will be rendered.

Presiding over the appeal are Justices Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Winston Anderson, Andrew Burgess, Peter Jamadar and Denys Barrow.

The charges against Ramcharran, stated that on July 22, 2012, at Soesdyke, East Bank Demerara, he sexually penetrated the young woman without her consent. Additionally, he was convicted of a charge that on the same day, during the rape, he assaulted her so as to cause actual bodily harm.

The state’s case was that the victim had gone to a dance with friends and was making her way to use the washroom when she was confronted by Ramcharran, who enquired from her whether she was “doing business.”

O’Brien, who led the state’s case at trial, had said that the young woman responded in the negative, at which point the convict grabbed her by the hand, after which a fight ensued between them.

The court had been told during the trial that Ramcharran then began hitting the victim repeatedly to the head with a bottle before dragging her aback an unfinished structure even as she continued to resist him.

The court had heard that it was at this point that the convict choked and punched the victim in her face as he raped her.

The state’s case also advanced that after the assault, Ramcharran offered the woman $65,000 and directed her to meet him at a car on the road. However, the young woman, who was stripped of her blouse by the convict, later sought assistance from other persons to leave the scene to seek medical attention as she was in and out of consciousness.

Both Ramcharran and the virtual complainant were 20 years old at the time.