Cousins sentenced in gruesome killing of Soesdyke-Linden Highway bus driver
JAILED: Kevin O’Neil and Anal Hope
JAILED: Kevin O’Neil and Anal Hope

 By Feona Morrison

WITHIN a composed courtroom ambiance on Friday, Justice Sandil Kissoon methodically recounted the alarming intricacies surrounding the merciless killing of Marcus Thomas, a 39-year-old father of seven and bus driver residing in Kuru Kururu, on the Soesdyke-Linden Highway, prior to delivering extensive prison sentences to the perpetrators.

Twenty-four-year-old Kevin O’Neil, a father of one, and Anal Hope, 22, the two cousins who pleaded guilty to a joint indictment for the capital offence last month, returned to the Demerara High Court Friday afternoon for their sentencing hearing.
Both clad in white long-sleeved shirts, O’Neil and Hope stood calmly in the prisoner’s dock as the judge sentenced them to serve 20 years and 18 years in prison, respectively, for what he termed a “brutal” and “premeditated” murder.
O’Neil was given a more severe sentence due to being perceived as the primary instigator. Justice Kissoon granted Hope a more lenient sentence upon determining that he had been influenced by his elder family member. The courtroom was crowded with family members of both the convicts and the bus driver.

MURDERED: Marcus Thomas

According to the prosecution’s facts, on May 11, 2021, the duo attacked and fatally stabbed and chopped Thomas at his Kuru Kururu, Soesdyke-Linden Highway home.
The evidence detailed a violent altercation that ended deadly, leaving Thomas with eight incised wounds, including chops to his face, chest and other parts of his body.
The incident began with an argument outside Thomas’s home, and quickly escalated as Thomas ran inside to escape the confrontation. Armed with knives and cutlasses, O’Neil and Hope pursued him, kicking down his door and launching a vicious attack that resulted in his death.

Following the commission of the crime, they fled to Hubu Backdam, in Parika, East Bank Essequibo (EBE). However, their flight was short-lived when they were apprehended just two days later.
Thomas’ cause of death was given as shock and haemorrhage.
During the occurrence, Thomas was in a common-law relationship with a female cousin of the cousins. According to the probation report, O’Neil asserted that Thomas had assaulted him and caused a fracture in his jaw previously. Consequently, the deceased man had incurred the resentment of his relatives.
Both O’Neil and Hope admitted that they were under the influence of alcohol when they committed the crime, according to the probation report.

EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL NO EXCUSE
During a plea in mitigation on O’Neil’s behalf, Attorney Konyo Sandiford conceded that nothing could justify her client’s actions, and that excessive alcohol consumption could not be used as an excuse.  Emphasisng that her client took responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity, she beseeched the court for mercy, and to impose a sentence that would allow him a chance to return and make a meaningful contribution to society.
Sandiford also read aloud a statement from her client, in which he expressed regret for his actions, and sought forgiveness from the deceased’s family and the court.
Hope’s attorney, Ronald Bostwick expressed similar sentiments, and pointed out that his client’s guilty plea was “genuine and not tactical”. From the inception, he said Hope gave a statement in which he made certain admissions to police detectives.
When given a chance to address the court, Hope said: “I am sorry for what happened. I’d like to ask the court to have mercy on me, because I was under alcohol at the moment.”
The young man claimed that attending anger management classes while incarcerated had improved his ability to control his anger.
The probation officer was informed by Thomas’s mother, and one of his sisters that their loved one had been “robbed of his life”, and that his killers should be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives in order to prevent them from harming anybody else.

‘A HEARTBREAKING LOSS’
In a victim impact statement, one of Thomas’s sisters reflected on their good relationship, and called his passing “a heartbreaking loss”. His mother, who is in her seventies, said that the passing of her son has caused her family “immeasurable pain” and that she never thought she would lose him in such a horrible way.

Justice Sandil Kissoon

Justice Kissoon denounced the cousins’ acts as “premeditated” and “brutal” during his sentencing remarks. He also said that Thomas was killed inside his home, “his castle,” where security is supposed to be guaranteed.
The judge stated that Thomas was murdered during a home invasion in front of a minor, not for financial gain but rather to cause him grievous bodily injury.
In addition to the high degree of premeditation, Justice Kissoon also cited the men’s use of lethal weapons and their gratuitous act of violence, which resulted in serious injuries to Thomas’s vulnerable and critical bodily parts.
Moreover, he highlighted the presence of defensive wounds on Thomas remains which, according to him, indicated that he was “fighting for his life”.
In accordance with his testimony, the deceased showed signs of chop wounds on his face, Adam’s apple, and a chest wound that penetrated his heart.

Justice Kissoon emphasised that the frequent occurrence of unlawful killings is a worry for any civilized society governed by the rule of law and that, in this sense, sentence must act as a deterrence to both the offenders and any potential criminals.
He said that he would not impose an indeterminate (life) sentence because of the killers’ youthful age, and their “genuine” expression of remorse. He said, too, that he had no doubts about their ability to be rehabilitated.
The judge bemoaned the “unfortunate” incident, stating it was alcohol-related and should not have happened.  Ultimately, both men received jail sentences from Justice Kissoon after he weighed the nature of the crime, the convicts’ backgrounds, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented by the lawyers. He mandated that they participate in a vocational training programmes and anger management sessions to help with their rehabilitation.
The prosecution’s case was led by attorneys Joy Williams and Padma Dubraj.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.