–says judge before sentencing contractor to life without parole for 2016 Linden shooting

AFTER nearly nine years, justice has been served in the case of 54-year-old Colwyn Alex Croal, who was sentenced to life in prison without parole on Thursday for discharging a loaded firearm with intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or cause grievous bodily harm to Sherwin Hughes.

The sentencing took place before Justice Navindra Singh at the Demerara High Court, following Croal’s conviction on February 21, 2025.
While the father of seven was acquitted of the primary charge of attempted murder, the jury unanimously found him guilty on the alternative charge.

The charges stemmed from a brutal attack on April 2, 2016, at the Linden Market in Region 10. Croal, in a fit of rage, assaulted his former wife, Simone Belle Croal, by throwing a glass bottle at her.

Her cousin, Sherwin Hughes, 50, intervened, rushing her to the Linden Hospital Complex.
Later that night, as Hughes attempted to escort Simone home, Croal ambushed them, opening fire on the vehicle. Hughes was shot in the arm and back, with the bullets still lodged in his body to this day. Simone, already injured, was also struck.

Both were rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment.
Despite compelling police statements from two of Croal’s children recounting the harrowing events of that night, they never testified in court. This was because Simone provided no evidence, leading to the withdrawal of the attempted murder charge against Croal for her shooting.

Croal was a fugitive for nearly two months after the shooting and was captured during a police raid on a suspected drug hideout in Lethem. Croal’s legal troubles do not end here.
He has a history of violent offences, including another attempted murder charge for the September 23, 2022, shooting of Nigel Somersaul, also known as ‘Boogieman.’

He was scheduled to stand trial for that crime in November 2024. However, just days before the trial, Somersaul was murdered and his body was discovered on November 4, 2024.
With the victim deceased, the case could not proceed.

DANGER TO SOCIETY
Before delivering the custodial sentence, Justice Singh was unequivocal, stating, “He [Croal] is a danger to society. He’s incapable of being rehabilitated. He cannot be allowed to come back on this road.”

He further noted the convict’s complete lack of remorse.
After considering recommendation 30 of the Needham’s Point Declaration on Criminal Justice Reform, along with the evidence presented at trial and during the sentencing hearing, the judge ruled that the sentence in this case “must be focused on deterrence.”

“I’ve listened to the evidence at the trial, and today [Thursday], I listened to Mr. Croal. He cannot be rehabilitated. He has a disposition that cannot be fixed, and he is already 54 years old—so no fixing that,” Justice Singh emphasised.

The judge condemned the shooting as “senseless, unprovoked, and cruel,” noting that it also injured Croal’s then-wife, the mother of six of his children, and could have easily claimed three lives.
Justice Singh strongly condemned Croal’s attempt to deceive the court with a false defence, pointing out that two individuals testified on his behalf, supporting a fabricated alibi.
Despite the jury’s guilty verdict, the judge noted: “He [Croal] stands there and continues to tell me that he was in the bush [interior].”

Justice Singh criticised the offender for “disrespecting his court” by alleging that he was not given the opportunity to call witnesses.
Emphasising that lying to the court constitutes the criminal offence of perjury, the judge remarked: “In the past, I have had people charged with perjury for lying and presenting false alibis. Perjury in Guyana carries a seven-year sentence on conviction.”

“I have always been adamant that people should not feel they can come, try a thing, lie in this court, and if they don’t get through, that’s it,” he added.
As a result, Justice Singh stated that he would investigate the defence witnesses with the intention of having them prosecuted for perjury.

MAKE AN EXAMPLE
During sentencing, prosecutor, attorney-at-law Christopher Belfield urged the court to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, emphasising Croal’s violent history and referencing abuse reports made by his ex-wife to a probation officer.

“His actions are indicative of his violent nature and corroborates his wife’s allegations and account of his abusive nature during their marriage as recorded in his probation report,” he submitted.

Belfield remarked that Croal, through his actions, demonstrated a blatant disregard for human life.
“Mr. Hughes was not the only victim. The convict’s wife was also shot, and it is a miracle that neither of them died, nor that Mr. Hughes’ wife was injured. This attack on the lives of these three persons was unprovoked and unjustifiable.”

Given the widespread issue of unlawful shootings in Guyanese society, particularly by individuals with unlicensed firearms, Prosecutor Belfield urged the court to “make an example” of Croal, emphasising the need to send a strong message to potential offenders, and citing case law to support his argument.

Recalling the extent of the injuries the victim suffered, the prosecutor stated: “He suffered a gunshot wound to his arm in the humeral area and to the lower back in the lumbar region, which forms part of the spine. The placement of these bullets was described to him as a miracle by the doctors since they missed his vital organs. These bullets remain lodged in him, and he requires surgery outside of Guyana to have them removed, which he cannot finance.”

According to counsel, Hughes lives with a “representation and fragment of the brutality” inflicted upon him.
Addressing Croal’s defence, Belfield noted that the convict introduced an alibi for the first time, offering details he had never provided to the police or magistrate.

“He was blatant in lying to the court about his presence in Linden at the time of the shooting, and instead positioned himself in Marudi. Secondly, he conspired with two actors to serve as his witnesses, both of whom gave conflicting evidence—contradicting each other and the official police record,” Belfield noted.
Moreover, the prosecutor criticised Croal for making serious accusations against the police, alleging that he was targetted due to his activism in Linden.

Belfield stated, “This not only indicates Mr. Croal’s intention to avoid responsibility for the crime he committed, but it is also a blatant disregard for due process in the law. The State notes a dangerous and concerning pattern—the increase in fabricated evidence by the defence in criminal trials. In this regard, the State wishes for it to be unequivocally understood that the fabrication of evidence in criminal trials is tantamount to a breach of legal ethics and is offensive to the administration of justice and a fair trial.”

“The State does not tolerate the subversion of the principles of transparency and accountability by maliciously presenting false evidence. This is an assault on the rule of law in Guyana; it jeopardizes the integrity of the entire judicial process, undermines justice, and is a blatant disrespect to the entire judiciary. The State frowns upon this rising practice and wishes to remind both defendants and practitioners that there are severe consequences for this behaviour. This must cease,” he added.

When given the opportunity to address the court, a visibly relieved Hughes shared his struggles with life after the incident and expressed his satisfaction with the outcome.
“Thank God! I waited nine years to get justice. I feel pleased with the justice. I feel happy because it wasn’t something easy, I was going through,” said the victim, who has known Croal his entire life.

PLEA IN MITIGATION
Defence attorney Donavon Rangiah pleaded for a reduced sentence, citing Croal’s age and his claims of innocence.

Emphasising that his client had no prior convictions, he argued that Croal was of “good character,” had “strong community ties,” and appealed for “mercy” and “leniency.”
Rangiah described Croal as a devoted father, brother, and fiancé. The attorney stated that his client is gainfully employed as a contractor and has contracts for road projects.

He contended that the prosecution’s case relied on unreliable witness testimony, noting that an eyewitness’ account was never tested under cross-examination.
Additionally, he pointed out that no firearm was recovered following the shooting.

Justice Singh intervened to clarify whether Croal was still denying the crime. When Rangiah confirmed with a “yes,” the judge responded, “Well, don’t ask for mercy and leniency.”
Addressing the court, the convict maintained his innocence, stating, “I am innocent. I know nothing about this. There was never any witness in the magistrate’s court who said I pelt a bottle at my wife. I was at Marudi Mountain operating my dredge.”

Croal insisted that fabricated evidence was presented against him at his trial.

Declaring that God is the ultimate judge, he stated, “I leave everything in the hands of God. Everything will come to light. Judgment will be passed by the Almighty God on all the orchestrators who planned this evidence against me to see me suffer in jail.”