GUYANA’S final appellate court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), on Friday, acquitted Jarvis ‘Barry’ Small for the 2010 murder of 16-year-old Neesa Gopaul, and reduced the sentence of Neesa’s mother, Bibi Gopaul to 30 years.

The appeal was heard by the President of the CCJ, Justice Adrian Saunders along with Justice Jacob Wit, Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Justice Denys Barrow and Justice Peter Jamadar.
A jury in 2015 found Bibi and Small guilty of the teenager’s murder. Bibi was sentenced to 106 years, while Small received a 96-year prison sentence at the High Court.

The duo appealed their sentences at Guyana’s Court of Appeal. That Court, however, upheld the convictions but reduced the prison term to 45 years each.
In the case that was advanced to the CCJ, Small was represented by Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes, while Gopaul was represented by Attorney-at-Law Arud Gossai.

On Friday, Justice Barrow read the CCJ’s judgement in the appeal, noting that the court separately reviewed the evidence against both appellants.
In relation to Small, Justice Barrow stated that there were three matters of evidence which reportedly included the dumbbells which were found with the suitcase, reports that he sexually assaulted Neesa, and a statement that he knew who committed the murder.

The court, in its judgement, rejected the state’s argument that the reports of sexual assault provided motive, instead recognising that it was just speculation that Small had reason to kill the 16-year-old.
The court, throughout the hearings, found that there was no evidence that Small also retained possession of the dumbbells that were placed with the body.

Further, it found that it was not possible to conclude that because he said he knew about the killing that he was the killer.
Recognising these as the only evidence against Small, the court noted there was no case for Small to answer to. As such, he was acquitted.

Additionally, it was noted that the falsity of evidence against Small occurred since the trial’s commencement. It was then that even Small had asked for a separate trial considering that the evidence in use to convict him at the time, which was provided by an inmate of the prison against Bibi, was not only inadmissible but prejudicial to Small.

“This made it an exceptional case where the trial judge ought to have directed that there would be separate trials. Small was gravely prejudiced by the joint trial because he was convicted on the strength of evidence which was completely inadmissible against him,” Justice Barrow read.

This was evidence presented by Simone DeNobrega, who was at the time awaiting her own trial, and met Bibi in the lockups. It is believed that the mother of Neesa confessed to DeNobrega about her and Small’s involvement in the murder of Neesa.

According to Justice Barrow, this evidence should not have been placed before a jury that was trying the case against Small.
Meanwhile, for Gopaul’s appeal, the CCJ Justice said the court rejected the argument that the initial jury was not warned about the danger of acting on DeNobrega’s testimony. Justice Barrow further said that the court also found it difficult to believe that the conviction was unsafe simply because there was no other material evidence connecting Gopaul to the murder.

The court outright rejected the argument that there was no evidence connecting Gopaul to the murder. Instead, the justices pointed to the items that were found with the body which, they believe, the jury could reasonably find came from Gopaul’s home.

As it relates to sentencing, it was stated that Gopaul was subject to sentencing according to Section 100A (1) (b) of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act. This section states that persons shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life or any other term that the court considers appropriate, not being less than 15 years.

As such, looking at the initial sentence, the court found that there had been no fair and just sentencing process.
Justice Barrow said, “The sentence imposed by the trial court, 106 years with a starting point of 60 years, exceeded the life expectancy of a human being and was grossly disproportionate and manifestly excessive.”

In addition to this, the CCJ also reviewed the resentencing of the Court of Appeal to which Justice Barrow said that Guyana’s Appeal Court did not discount time spent on remand awaiting trial from its sentence.
While this sentence of 45 years handed down by the Court of Appeal was not as grossly disproportionate as the trial judge’s sentence, it was still “manifestly excessive.”

The court, the Justice said, considered local cases that were cited which did not include the murder of minors and focused on the aggravating and mitigating factors relative to the offence.
To this end, the court determined that a reasonable starting range for sentencing was fifteen to twenty years of prison sentence as there was justification for choosing a starting range at the higher end as the case involved the murder of a minor.

Some of the aggravating factors included that it was the murder of a child by her parent which was associated with the vulnerability of the minor, the betrayal of trust, and responsibility by a parent along with the degree of violence used to commit the murder.

This was enough to increase the upper limit of the starting range for sentencing to 22 years and then select a starting point at the upper end of this new range. Considering several factors, it was pointed out that a further uplift of between five to eight years was justified.

Justice Barrow added that the sentencing considerations include the relationship of trust and responsibility, the degree of blunt force trauma to the head, the method of disposal of the body and the lack of remorse by Gopaul, among other things.

In handing down the sentence, the court also considered that from the record, Gopaul had no prior convictions along with the fact that she was at the time of sentencing undergoing rehabilitation. As such, it was determined that the fair sentence would be 30 years.

The Justice further said that this thirty-year sentence also includes parole eligibility, not before fifteen years, which would meet the penological objectives of sentencing. From this 30-year sentence, the period of five years would be deducted for time spent in custody awaiting trial.

As such, the CCJ allowed the appeal of Small, and, in part, the appeal of Gopaul against the sentences imposed by Guyana’s Court of Appeal. Gopaul’s appeal against the conviction was dismissed. She will, instead, serve a 25-year prison sentence.

Neesa’s body was found submerged in a suitcase in the Madewini Creek in the vicinity of the Emerald Towers Resort on October 2, 2010, and it was at the time believed to be headless.
A post-mortem later revealed that the body was not headless but was, however, stricken beyond recognition. Dumbbells similar to those found in a gym owned by Small was found tied to the suitcase in which the body was found.

Additionally, the body was found with a passport bearing the name “Neesa Gopaul”. She was reported missing days before the discovery was made.