Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. In a judgment released by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in its Appellate Jurisdiction, the Court allowed the appeal of Calvin Ramcharran, in the Guyanese matter of Calvin Ramcharran v the Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] CCJ 4 AJ (GY). The Court found his sentence for rape to be excessive and imposed a new sentence of twelve (12) years imprisonment. The appeal was heard on 12 October 2021.
Calvin Ramcharran (‘Ramcharran’) was tried before a jury and convicted of rape and assault causing actual bodily harm. On the day of the verdict, he was sentenced to twenty-three (23) years imprisonment for the offence of rape and three (3) years imprisonment for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Court of Appeal of Guyana affirmed the decision of the trial judge. Ramcharran appealed to the CCJ. The appeal was against the sentence alone, the CCJ having refused him permission to appeal against his convictions.
The CCJ majority (Justices Anderson, Barrow and Burgess) found that the sentence for rape was manifestly excessive. They considered that the trial judge failed to hold a separate sentencing hearing, take a victim impact statement, obtain mental health or psychological assessments, obtain a social report and give reasons for and indicate the process used to arrive at the sentence. While the trial judge did hear a plea in mitigation and did not impose the maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the judge gave no reasons for the sentence imposed. As a result, the appellate courts could only infer what the trial judge considered in arriving at the sentence. They found that the Court of Appeal made an error in reviewing the trial judge’s sentence. The Court of Appeal failed to follow the comprehensive guidance for trial judges in respect of sentencing in rape cases, provided in the earlier CCJ decision in Pompey v The Director of Public Prosecutions.
The CCJ majority considered the range of starting sentences for rape used in other cases, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. They found that a sentence of twelve (12) years imprisonment for rape was appropriate. For assault causing actual bodily harm, the majority found that because the three (3) year sentence of imprisonment for assault is to be served concurrently with the rape sentence, it may be left to stand for its demonstrative and deterrent effect.
The CCJ minority (Justices Rajnauth-Lee and Jamadar) agreed that the original sentence for rape was excessive and needed to be reviewed. However, they would have instead imposed a sentence of sixteen (16) years imprisonment for rape. They provided guidance to judges on the general approaches that should be adopted at a sentencing hearing. The CCJ majority agreed with the guidance provided.
The CCJ allowed Ramcharran’s appeal and sentenced him to twelve (12) years imprisonment for rape. The sentence for assault causing actual bodily harm of three (3) years imprisonment was affirmed. Both sentences are to be served concurrently.
The Court was presided over by the Honourable Justices Anderson, Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Burgess and Jamadar. The Appellant was represented Mr CA Nigel Huges, Mr Roland Daniels and Ms Savannah Barnwell and the Respondent by Mrs Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, Mrs Diana Kaulesar-O’Brien, Mrs Teshana Lake and Ms Natasha Backer.
The full judgment of the Court is available on the CCJ’s website: www.ccj.org
“The CCJ minority (Justices Rajnauth-Lee and Jamadar) agreed that the original sentence for rape was excessive and needed to be reviewed. However, they would have instead imposed a sentence of sixteen (16) years imprisonment for rape.” If the original sentence was 12 years as indicated, I wonder what were they drinking.
This shoes me that the judge came to this matter with his/her biasses and failed to follow the law regarding sentencing. If these servants of the court can violate the law and they are not at all made to pay in some form them there is a very serious problem with law enforcement. There has to be methods of sanctioning and reppremanding judges of all courts when they are so swell headed and fail to follow the law. How can we have confidence in those who create renegade legal system? They sit in court in their black robes and talk to citizens as if they are high and mighty, whilst lacking compassion and decency to obey the laws themselves.