-lawyer argues as appeal hearing begins

THE Appeal Court, on Friday, heard from Attorney-at-law, Nigel Hughes, that Jarvis ‘Barry’ Small should not have been tried in the High Court for the murder of Neesa Gopaul, given the lack of evidence against him.

Hughes and attorney, Arud Gossai, who is representing Bibi Shareema Gopaul, made oral submissions when the court commenced, via Zoom, the full hearing of an appeal filed by the ex-lovers.
The two were convicted of the gruesome murder of 16-year-old Neesa Gopaul which occurred in 2010.
They have appealed their conviction and the combined total of 202 years’ imprisonment which was handed down by Justice Navindra Singh in March 2015. Bibi Gopaul, the mother of the teen was sentenced to 106 years while Small was given 96 years.

In their appeal documents which are before Chancellor of the Judiciary, Yonette Cummings-Edwards, and Justices of Appeal, Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory, they are contending that the trial was unfair and that the trial judge erred in law.
Hughes, during the hearing, argued that the indictment should have been severed, allowing for two separate trials to be conducted. However, since that was not done, the evidence led by the prosecutor against Bibi Gopaul was prejudicial to Small.

The attorney also said that the only evidence led during trial against his client was a pair of dumbbells which was found at the crime scene by the police which they assumed belonged to Small.
Additionally, he argued that there was no nexus between the dumbbells and Neesa’s death, nor was there any direct or circumstantial evidence linking his client to the crime.
Against that background, the attorney argued that his client should not have been committed to stand trial at the High Court, given the insufficient evidence which was presented during the Preliminary Inquiry at the Magistrates’ Court.

Meanwhile, Gossai contended that the evidence of the main witness, Simone DeNobrega, during the trial was highly prejudicial to his client.
DeNobrega was the former cellmate of Bibi Gopaul and she had testified during trial that the woman confided in her that it was Small who killed the teen.
Gossai further argued that the trial judge failed to warn the jury how to treat with the evidence of DeNobrega which had many discrepancies.
According to Gossai, the trial judge failed to inform the jury that DeNobrega was not a reliable witness since she was convicted for fraud-related crimes, which were of a “dishonest nature.”
Both attorneys submitted that the sentence imposed by Justice Singh was severe and not within the guidelines of modern sentencing principles.
According to Hughes, the trial judge did not give an analysis of how he arrived at a base of 60 years for the sentence imposed on Small which was beyond the natural life span of the average Guyanese.

Gossai on this point, argued that instead of starting at a base of 60 years, the trial judge should have started at 10 years.
“Even for a life sentence, the starting point is 15 years. The learned trial judge is plucking numbers from the air,” Gossai told the court.
Attorneys-at-law, Ronald Daniels and Sophia Findlay are also representing Small while State is being represented by prosecutor, Stacy Goodings.
Arguments will continue on November 11.

The Guyana Chronicle had reported that, on October 2, 2010, the remains of Neesa Gopaul were discovered at a location along the Soesdyke/Linden Highway tucked inside a suitcase that was partially submerged in a creek.

A rope had been wrapped around the suitcase, and dumbbells were attached at one end, apparently in an effort to keep the body under water.
Besides the body, a passport bearing the name, Neesa Lalita Gopaul, was found. The teenager was reported missing just days before the gruesome discovery was made.
Subsequent to the discovery of the body, Bibi and Small were arrested and charged with murder.