JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, March 29, 2025

Convicted duo appeal verdict in Sean Luke case

by

Derek Achong
996 days ago
20220706

The Court of Ap­peal will this morn­ing hear sub­mis­sions in the ap­peal of two men con­vict­ed of bru­tal­ly mur­der­ing six-year-old Sean Luke, as teenagers, over 16 years ago.

In the ap­peal, lawyers rep­re­sent­ing Akeel Mitchell and Richard Cha­too are claim­ing that High Court Judge Lisa Ram­sumair-Hinds made sev­er­al er­rors when she con­vict­ed them of the heinous crime af­ter a vir­tu­al judge-alone tri­al al­most ex­act­ly a year ago.

Mitchell and Cha­too’s le­gal team filed eight grounds chal­leng­ing Ram­sumair-Hinds’ de­ci­sion in the case, in­clud­ing fail­ing to prop­er­ly iden­ti­fy key prin­ci­ples of law ap­plic­a­ble in the case and mak­ing in­fer­en­tial find­ings that she was not en­ti­tled to.

They al­so con­tend­ed she wrong­ly con­sid­ered the ev­i­dence of State wit­ness Avinash Ba­boolal, Luke’s neigh­bour, who the ac­cused men re­peat­ed­ly sought to blame for Luke’s mur­der and the DNA ev­i­dence pre­sent­ed in the case.

“We re­spect­ful­ly sub­mit that the learned tri­al judge com­mit­ted sev­er­al er­rors of law which would nec­es­sar­i­ly re­sult in a mis­car­riage of jus­tice,” their at­tor­neys said.

The duo’s lawyers are al­so claim­ing that even if they are un­suc­cess­ful in con­vinc­ing the ap­peal pan­el that their con­vic­tions are un­safe, the sen­tences they re­ceived from Jus­tice Ram­sumair-Hinds were too se­vere and should be ad­just­ed.

As they were mi­nors when they com­mit­ted the crime, Mitchell and Cha­too were sen­tenced at the court’s plea­sure and were or­dered to serve manda­to­ry min­i­mum terms of 33 years and 27 years re­spec­tive­ly.

Mitchell and Chaitoo would be el­i­gi­ble to be con­sid­ered for re­lease in 17 and a half years and 11 and a half years re­spec­tive­ly, as the time they spent on re­mand be­fore be­ing con­vict­ed was de­duct­ed from their sen­tences.

In re­sponse to the ap­peal, the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) claimed the grounds raised by the duo’s lawyers are not mer­i­to­ri­ous and their con­vic­tions and sen­tences should be af­firmed.

Luke, of Hen­ry Street, Or­ange Val­ley Road, Cou­va, went miss­ing on the evening of March 26, 2006 and his de­com­pos­ing body was found two days lat­er. An au­top­sy re­vealed he died from in­ter­nal in­juries and bleed­ing, aris­ing out of be­ing sodomised with sug­ar­cane stalk.

Cha­too and Mitchell, who is the step­son of Cha­too’s broth­er, were charged with the crime. Dur­ing the tri­al, State pros­e­cu­tors led the ev­i­dence of teenagers Avinash Ba­boolal and Arvis Pradeep, who claimed that Cha­too had in­vit­ed Luke to ac­com­pa­ny them on a fish­ing ex­pe­di­tion.

Both Ba­boolal and Pradeep claimed that they saw Luke, Cha­too and Mitchell en­ter an aban­doned sug­ar­cane field, where Luke’s body was even­tu­al­ly found, with on­ly Cha­too and Mitchell emerg­ing.

How­ev­er, while Ba­boolal claimed they en­tered the field on their way to the riv­er, Pradeep claimed the di­ver­sion came when they were re­turn­ing.

In con­vict­ing the duo, Jus­tice Ram­sumair-Hinds al­so con­sid­ered a video-record­ed con­fes­sion state­ment, in which Cha­too im­pli­cat­ed him­self and Mitchell.

In the record­ing, Cha­too claimed that Mitchell, who was spend­ing time at his home, re­quest­ed that he (Mitchell) have sex with him. Ac­cord­ing to Cha­too, af­ter he re­fused, he re­luc­tant­ly agreed to Mitchell’s re­quest to in­tro­duce him to Luke, who was his (Cha­too) neigh­bour.

Cha­too claimed that he mere­ly held Luke’s hands and cov­ered his mouth as Mitchell raped him and sodomised him with the sug­ar­cane stalk.

How­ev­er, Cha­too elect­ed to tes­ti­fy in his de­fence dur­ing the tri­al and claimed he fab­ri­cat­ed the con­fes­sion as he was threat­ened and co­erced by homi­cide de­tec­tives.

Cha­too de­nied any wrong­do­ing and claimed Mitchell did not ac­com­pa­ny the group on the fish­ing trip. He al­so sought to sug­gest that Ba­boolal may have been the per­pe­tra­tor.

Pros­e­cu­tors al­so led DNA ev­i­dence which showed that Mitchell’s se­men was found on Luke’s dis­card­ed un­der­wear.

A par­tial DNA pro­file, not linked to Cha­too, was found on the sug­ar­cane stalk and on anal swabs tak­en dur­ing Luke’s au­top­sy.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored