Amogan et Al v The State
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | John, J.A |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2006 CA 42 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2003 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 15 December 2006 |
Court of Appeal
John, J.A.; Mendonca, J.A.; Weekes, J.A.
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2003
Ms. M. Rose for appellant No. 1.
Mr. K. Scotland for appellant No. 2.
Mr. B. Dolsingh for the respondent.
Criminal practice and procedure - Directions to the jury — Statements — Whether trial judge erred in directing the jury that if they found certain statements to be true, these statements could be accepted even if found to have been made in oppressive or improper circumstances — Appeal allowed — Convictions quashed — Whether a retrial would be appropriate — Compelling prosecution evidence — Length of time which elapsed since incident and time accused spent in custody — New trial ordered.
Criminal law - Murder — Appeal against conviction — Sentenced to death — Directions to jury — Liability for murder — Joint enterprise — Directions were in accord with settled principles of law — Appeal dismissed.
On May 29, 2003 Anthony Amogan appellant No. 1 and Michael Ramdhawar appellant No. 2 were convicted at the Port of Spain Assizes of the murder of Ramcoomar Ramoutar. They were sentenced to death. They now appeal against their convictions.
The murder of Ramcoomar Ramoutar “the deceased” took place on the night of February 22, 1997 at Carlsen Field, Chaguanas. The deceased lived at Chaguanas with his wife Ann Singh and their daughter Roxanne Singh and adjacent to their home was a feed depot, which he owned and operated.
Shortly before 6:00 p.m. on the evening of February 22, 1997 Roxanne, who was then 15 years of age, was in the feed depot with her cousin, Jill Beepath when two East Indian men identified as appellants Nos. 1 and 2 entered. One of them purchased a bag of feed, and said that he would return shortly to collect it. He returned a few minutes later and grabbed Roxanne by the neck. She shouted to her father but appellant No. 1 pointed a gun to her head and told her if she cried out for help he would kill her.
The appellants escorted the two girls into the living room of the family home. Appellant No. 1 was armed with a gun and appellant No. 2 with a cutlass, which he held to the neck of Jill Beepath. The deceased, his wife, Paras Beepath and his wife Joan, Jill's parents were all seated around a table in the dining room. Appellant No. 1 announced a hold-up and told everybody to lie on the ground. They all complied. Appellant No. 1 asked who was the owner of the house. When the deceased replied, appellant No. 1 told him, words to the effect, that he would be killed just like “Jaggath”. Appellant No. 1 then took a belt from the chair and struck the deceased with it in the presence of appellant 2 who destroyed the telephone and tied up everybody on the instruction of appellant No. 1.
Appellant No. 1 then went upstairs with Roxanne Singh to look for money and jewellery but before doing so he told appellant No. 2 to kill anyone who moved. About twenty minutes later he returned with Roxanne and demanded money. Ann Singh was robbed of her ring and appellant No. 1 asked her for the keys for the family car, which she gave him. The two appellants then bound and gagged the deceased and dragged him into the back of the vehicle and drove off with him.
The police were contacted and a party of policemen including Corporal Mohan went to the home of the deceased. Whilst there, Corporal Mohan received certain information which led him to a trace in Carlsen Field, Chaguanas. There he saw the vehicle parked in the trace and in the back seat lay the body of the deceased with both hands and feet bound with wire. Appellant No. 1 was arrested on March 10, 1997 and appellant No. 2 on March 11, 1997.
Sergeant Hilaire testified that he met appellant No. 1, on the 10th March 1997 when he was introduced to him at the Chaguanas Police station. He identified himself, told appellant No.1 of the report he was investigating, cautioned him and informed him of his rights. Immediately thereafter appellant No.1 responded, “I will tell you everything”.
Sergeant Hilaire testified that he saw appellant No. 2, on the 11th March 1997 at the Chaguanas Police Station. He identified himself to appellant No. 2 and informed him of the murder being investigated and appellant No. 2, replied, “Boss, I will tell you everything”. Sergeant Hilaire then inquired if he wanted to give a statement and he replied in the positive. Sergeant Hilaire took a Justice of Peace into the room and appellant No. 2 repeated his request and asked Sergeant Hilaire to write as he dictated and requested that his cousin, Nareesa Amogan witness the statement.
Dr. Hughvon De Vignes performed an autopsy on the body of the deceased. According to the pathologist the deceased died as a result of “gunshot wounds of knees”.
The case against the appellants rested primarily on:
-
i. confessional written statements allegedly given by each appellant;
-
ii. oral admissions made by the appellants;
-
iii. a fingerprint found on a cheque at the deceased's home that matched a print taken from appellant Ramdhawar;
-
iv. the identification testimony of the appellants by Ann Singh, Roxanne Singh, Paras Beepath and Joan Beepath.
Before dealing with the grounds of appeal I consider it prudent to deal with the evidence in some greater detail.
-
(a) Roxanne Singh, Ann Singh, Paras Beepath and Joan Beepath
They all testified that they saw appellant No. 1 on the premises on the night of February 22, 1997. They pointed him out at an identification parade on March 10, 1997 at the Chaguanas Police Station. Roxanne Singh and Ann Singh further testified that during the period October — November 1996 they had seen him when he came to deliver beer in a Carib truck to a warehouse of the deceased.
-
(b) Jill Beepath
Her testimony accords, for the most part, with the events that took place at the house as described by Roxanne Singh, Ann Singh, Paras Beepath and Joan Beepath. Her testimony differs in one fundamental respect. Under cross-examination she said that at the Chaguanas Police Station on March 10, 1997, she had seen appellant No. 1, passing through the police station in handcuffs escorted by a police officer before the identification parade. In answer to questions put to her by the trial judge she further stated that at the material time she was accompanied by Roxanne Singh, Ann Singh and Paras Beepath. They, however, denied seeing the appellant.
-
(c) Amogan
Amogan in his written statement to the police admitted that one Speedy had hired him to carry out a robbery at the home of the deceased. He further said in the statement that after the robbery, Speedy told him to bring the deceased to a trace in Carlsen Field. He admitted that he acted in accordance with the dictates of Speedy who took him in his (Speedy's) car and showed him the place earlier in the afternoon of February 22, 1997. He admitted going to the deceased's home with one Wolf and after the robbery he drove the deceased in PAN 6625 and parked it in the trace. He and his accomplice, Ramdhawar, saw Speedy's car parked there also. He gave his gun to Speedy and they went towards Speedy's car. As soon as they got into the car he heard two explosions coming from the area of the Toyota. Shortly after, Speedy came and drove his car to his home where they shared the money.
-
(d) Ramdhawar
He too gave a written statement to the police in which he admitted being hired by Speedy to rob the place and bring out the man. He further admitted that prior to the actual robbery he was shown the place. After executing the plan, he said that they parked the car with the deceased in the trace and they walked back to Speedy's car whereupon he heard two explosions. After the job he received $1,000.00 from Speedy. No one identified him on any identification parade but a fingerprint found on a cheque taken from the dining table at the premises matched a print taken from him.
Appellant No.1 testified that he was arrested by the police on the 10th March 1997. He said that Sergeant Bispath told him of the investigation and asked what he knew of the murder. He responded that he knew nothing of it. He was then informed that, one Speedy, whom appellant No. 1 acknowledged knowing, had implicated him in the crime and that Sergeant Bispath believed Speedy. Sergeant Bispath told him that Speedy said that he had directed appellant No. 1 to bring the deceased “at the base”, as he wanted to deal with him personally. Appellant No. 1 informed the officer that Speedy implicated him as a means of settling of scores for the affair appellant No. 1 had with Speedy's wife. Further, appellant No.1 said that he had complained of having a migraine headache and hunger to Sergeant Bispath who replied that only if he co-operated with the police would his complaints be addressed. Additionally, he said that Sergeant Bispath told him that he wanted him to sign some pages, which contained writing, and to transcribe a passage from a book to the end of one of the pages. The officer told him that, if he did as asked, his wife could witness the identification parade. He alleged that he was beaten by P.C. Pitt, but said nothing of this to the Justice of Peace as the officer had threatened to lock up his wife and put his children in an orphanage. Additionally, the statement was never read to him by the Justice of Peace or Sergeant Bispath. Appellant No. 1 denied being at the home of the deceased and participating in any robbery or kidnapping. He also denied being at Carlsen Field where the murder took place. However, he did say that he could not remember where he was on the day of the murder.
Appellant No.2 gave evidence on his own behalf. He raised the issue of alibi stating that on the day in question he was at his cousin's home in Bamboo Settlement No. 3. He said that he signed documents given to him by...
To continue reading
Request your trial