| Notices of appeal have been filed by lawyers for Bibi Shareema Gopaul and Jarvis Barry Small, the duo convicted of killing 16-year-old former Queen’s College student, Neesa Gopaul.Neesa GopaulOn March 5 last, High Court Judge Navindra Singh handed down sentences for the couple totaling 202 years. Bibi Gopaul, the victim’s mother and Small (the mother’s former lover) were sentenced to serve 106 and 96 years respectively for the murder committed sometime between September 24 and October 2, 2010.The decomposed body of the 16-year-old was found in a suitcase in a creek along the Linden-Soesdyke Highway on the latter date. She had been previously reported missing from her home at Leonora, West Coast Demerara, on the former.The pair was sentenced following a unanimous guilty verdict by a mixed-twelve member jury in one of the most high profile cases the nation has seen.According to Justice Singh’s calculation of the sentence for Small, the base was 60 years for the murder, 10 years for premeditation, 10 years for brutality, 10 years because the victim was a child, and six years forJarvis Barry Smalldomestic violence.However with regards to Gopaul, an additional 10 years was added to the sentence since the victim was her daughter and she failed to protect her.Subsequent to the ruling, lawyers representing both accused persons signaled their intentions to appeal the verdict and the sentence.Last Wednesday, Attorney George Thomas, who represented Gopaul during the trial, submitted the notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal in Kingston, Georgetown. Thomas listed twenty – five (25) grounds as a basis of his request for a Court of Appeal Judge to overturn conviction and sentence of his client.Among things listed as grounds of appeal for Gopaul is that the trial judge failed to sufficiently put the defence of the accused to the jury; the trial judge misdirected the jury in relation to the evidence, findings and explanations of the forensic pathologist to the extent of inconsistencies and discrepancies with the story of the main prosecution witness, Simone De Nobrega.The lawyer is also asking the Appellate Court to consider that the trial judge misdirected the jury in relation to the bad character evidence of the main prosecution witness and how the jury should apply and rely on the evidence of the said prosecution witness; the trial judge failed to sufficiently guide the jury or at all on how to approach the evidence, particularly in respect of circumstantial evidence and drawing inferences that theBibi Shareema Gopaultrial failed to show how to apply the rule of drawing inference favourable to the accused and that the sentence was too severe in the circumstances.Meanwhile, the document filed by Small’s team of lawyers which included Attorneys Lyndon Amsterdam, Glenn Hanoman and Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos, is asking the court to consider three main grounds for appeal; the trial judge erred in law when he ruled that Jarvis Small should be tried jointly with Gopaul and not separately; that the judge erred when he overruled a no-case submission with regards to Small and that the trial judge erred in law when he admitted inadmissible evidence of a highly prejudicial nature in the trial whereby a miscarriage of justice was occasioned.In this regard the attorneys cited the evidence of Simone De Nobrega, statements of the deceased which were given to the police, and reports made by the deceased and the number two accused (Gopaul), to the police.They are asking the Court of Appeal Judges to consider too that the trial judge failed to adequately put Small’s defence to the jury,Nike Air Max 95 For Sale, whereby a miscarriage of justice was occasioned and the sentence given to Small by the trial judge was excessive, irrational and not grounded in any established legal principles as required by law.A date is yet to be set for the matter to come up before the Court of Appeal. |
