Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
The Court of Appeal has been asked to consider whether two brothers from east Trinidad should face a retrial for murdering a man and attempting to murder his brother and cousin after forcing them to help process their marijuana harvest, over a decade ago.
The issue arose yesterday as the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) conceded that a judge made an error when he convicted John and Victor Flores at the end of their jury-less trial in 2022.
Presenting submissions before Appellate Judges Maria Wilson, Ronnie Boodoosingh, and Geoffrey Henderson, yesterday morning, Deputy DPP Sabrina Dougdeen-Jaglal recommended a retrial for the siblings as she noted that their convictions were unsafe based on the error.
She said, “The nature of the error and the effect on the eventual decision is too great.”
The siblings were convicted of murdering Seecharan Sankar and attempting to murder Sankar’s brother Doodnath also known as Anil, and their cousin Rohan “Johnny” Ramnarine on May 24, 2010.
They were sentenced to hang for Sankar’s murder and still given 28-year sentences for attempted murder and eight years for arms and ammunition possession.
During the trial, Doodnath and Ramnarine testified that they and Sankar left their home at Charuma Village in Biche to harvest green bananas from Ramnarine’s garden which was located a short distance away.
Doodnath claimed that they were in the process of harvesting the produce when they were confronted by the Flores brothers, who were armed with shotguns.
He claimed that the brothers instructed them to drop their cutlasses and told them that they had come to kill Ramnarine to send a message to his (Ramnarine) brother, who was in prison at the time.
He claimed that they were forced to hike through a forested area and three marijuana fields before they arrived at a campsite at the peak of a small mountain.
Doodnath claimed that the brothers forced them to trim the dried marijuana flowers for almost two hours before John used Rammarine’s cellphone to make a call.
He then pointed the gun at Ramnarine and shot him once in his chest before turning the barrel to Doodnath’s brother and shooting him once in his back.
The gunman’s brother then shot in Doodnath’s direction but he was grazed at the side of his head.
He claimed that he jumped from the cliff in a bid to escape the men.
He claimed that when he landed at the bottom of the cliff, he saw Ramnarine, who appeared to have also jumped after being shot.
Doodnath claimed that he assisted Ramnarine in walking as he was bleeding from his mouth and chest and they made their way to a river.
The duo then followed the river’s path until they made their way back to the village, where they contacted their relatives and the police.
The Flores brothers were detained days after the incident. One was held in a taxi travelling to Mayaro and a shotgun, which was later identified as the murder weapon through ballistic testing, was found in his possession.
The duo denied any wrongdoing as they presented alibis. John claimed that he went to a relative’s home in Maracas, St Joseph, to borrow money, while Victor claimed that he was cutting grass at another relative’s property in Mayaro.
In deciding the case, Justice Hayden St Clair-Douglas disregarded an identification parade, in which Victor was allegedly pointed out, because it was unfair.
Justice St Clair-Douglas rejected the alibis as he accepted the identification evidence of the surviving relatives.
In conceding the appeal, yesterday, Dougdeen-Jaglal claimed that the judge could have only considered the duo’s failed alibis in determining their guilt if there was evidence that such was “concocted”.
She noted that he was entitled to disbelieve the alibis but there was no proof of wilful fabrication.
“There must be concoction and not merely disbelief,” she said.
In recommending the retrial, she said that it was required in the interest of justice and could be quickly facilitated.
Public defenders Delicia Helwig-Robertson and Shane Patience challenged the position as they pointed out that several other former murder accused, who were granted retrials in 2021 and 2022, were still awaiting trial.
“We are not accepting that this is the state that the system is in,” Patience said.
The appeal panel directed the parties to file further submissions on the issue and promised to give its decision on a date to be fixed.
