Court upholds conviction in grisly murder of 11-y-o

A Manchester man who murdered an 11-year-old with the help of his girlfriend, the boy’s sister, has lost his appeal against his conviction and also failed to have his 26-year pre-parole sentence reduced.

The killer, Kayode Garwood, who claimed his lover had asked him to murder her parents and brother, had cut Tareek Gregory’s throat twice, stabbed him twice and struck him multiple times in his head with a bat.

The Court of Appeal earlier this month refused Garwood’s application to challenge his conviction and sentence, after concluding that “there is no proper basis on which to disturb the verdict of the jury and the sentence imposed by the learned trial judge”.

Garwood’s girlfriend, Denisha Gregory, 25, was sentenced earlier in 2014 to four years in prison after she pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Prosecutors led evidence that Gregory and Garwood hatched a plan to kill her mother, father and brother because her mother did not approve of the relationship and the 11-year-old was their favourite child.

Garwood, in a statement which he gave to the police, said he held the boy’s throat and “squeeze ee until him knock out”.

“When him knock out, mi tek up di knife and cut him throat, and when time him wake up back, mi hear him a blow. Him could hardly blow,” he recounted.

“Denisha come to mi an seh ‘him no dead yet’, and shi come an give mi one bat and seh mi fi lick him wid it and mi lick him inna him head two time. After, Denisha tell mi seh him nuh dead yet, mi cut him throat again, then mi lick him inna him head wid di baton.”

He said he and Denisha walked to another room in the house, but could still hear the child blowing.

“Shi come roun deh wid one black scandal bag and tell mi fi put it ova him head, ‘him wi dead fasta’,” Garwood confessed.

“While mi a put it ova him head and a tighten it, him hold up him hand an’ tear it off him face and mi turn to har and seh, ‘Yuh a idiot? Mi nuh tell yuh fi hold him hand?’ Same time mi tek out di knife and stab him two times pan him left side.”

UNSPEAKABLY AWFUL MURDER

Sentencing judge, Justice Chester Stamp, had remarked that there were no words to describe the “unspeakably awful” murder that took place.

He referred to Garwood’s act as callous, cold and pitiless, while adding that there was nothing in the social enquiry report that would even help to explain the reason for such an act.

The killer appealed his conviction and sentence on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive; that his confession was unfairly taken; the confession was procured by oppression and pressure and that the trial judge erred in law in ruling on the voir dire to admit Garwood’s oral statement into evidence.

But the appellate court judges in the recently published judgment found no issue with the admissibility of oral and written statements.

“In the circumstances of this case, we find no merit in the applicant’s complaints that the circumstances of the taking of the caution statement were unfair because of the failure of the police to allow him a phone call and to secure duty counsel to act on his behalf.

“Based on the evidence, we find that these were issues that involved a question of credibility for the consideration of the learned trial judge in determining the admissibility of the caution statement. They were also matters to be left for the jury’s consideration in respect of what weight to attach to the caution statement upon its admission into evidence.”

The judges also found that the trial judge had properly guided the jury and left for their consideration what factual circumstances they found proved whether the applicant was guilty as well as what weight and value to place on the confession.

IN THE ACCUSED DEFENCE

As it relates to the sentence, Garwood’s lawyer, Dona Gittens, took issue with the judge’s treatment of the social enquiry report (SER) and the judge’s approach to the sentencing, claiming that he had failed to follow the sentencing guideline.

Regarding the SER, Gitten’s argument was essentially that the failure by the judge to have the report read into evidence instead of being admitted as being read deprived the applicant of his constitutional right to have a public trial.

The lawyer also contended that information having to do with the paternal abuse reportedly suffered by the applicant, his home and employment background, and his attitude to employment or authority was not properly considered by the judge.

However, the Court of Appeal judges, while stressing that there was no statutory requirement that mandates the use of a SER in murder sentencing, found that the trial judge did, in fact, fully consider the contents of the SER in arriving at the appropriate sentence. They also indicated that there was no prejudice caused to the applicant in not having the SER read orally into the record.

The judges however found that the trial judge had not followed the sentencing guideline in that he had not indicated at a starting point nor had he explained how he had accounted for the mitigating and aggravating factors or the six years that Garwood has spent on remand.

But, the judge having considered the sentences anew, said, “It is, therefore, clear, that the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole before serving 26 years, imposed by the learned trial judge, is by no means manifestly excessive.”

Prosecutors Sophia Rowe and Christina Porter represented the Crown.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com