By Renay Sambach
(Kaieteur News) – Justices at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Wednesday heard an appeal filed by attorneys for Michael Caesar, who earlier this year had his sentences for the Lusignan and Bartica massacres reduced by the Guyana Court of Appeal (COA).
A significant part of the hearing was focused on the question of life expectancy in Guyana, which is one of the grounds being argued by the appellant, who is contending that by the time he becomes eligible for parole, he will be well beyond the average life expectancy in Guyana.
Attorneys-at-law Nigel Hughes and Kiswana Jefford have appealed to the CCJ, challenging the sentences imposed by the COA following Caesar’s convictions for manslaughter arising from his involvement in the Lusignan and Bartica massacre killings.
Some of the CCJ justices at a Ceremonial Sitting to commemorate the opening of the 2026/2027 Judicial Year held in St. Lucia.Some of the CCJ justices at a Ceremonial Sitting to commemorate the opening of the 2026/2027 Judicial Year held in St. Lucia.
On March 11, 2026, the COA delivered its ruling, which reduced the sentences originally imposed by the High Court against Caesar and Clebert Reece, another convict in the massacres.
The COA found that the trial judge’s sentencing approach was excessive and inconsistent with established legal principles. The Court resentenced both appellants, substituting sentences of life imprisonment with defined parole eligibility periods in place of the original determinate sentences, which the appellants argued effectively exceeded the statutory maximum.
For Caesar, the COA imposed life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after serving 30 calendar years on each of the eight counts relating to the Lusignan killings, and life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after serving 40 calendar years on each of the 12 counts relating to the Bartica killings. All sentences run concurrently from the date of the original sentencing on December 8, 2016.
However, while the COA effectively imposed a reduced sentence on Caesar, his legal team is now before the CCJ contending that these minimum periods 30 and 40 years are excessive, as their client would be approximately 75 years old before becoming eligible for parole.
It should be noted that their appeal is confined solely to the determination of the appropriate minimum periods to be served before parole eligibility. The appellant argued that the COA failed to give sufficient consideration to Caesar’s advanced age and prospects for rehabilitation.
The in-person hearing was held in St. Lucia. Speaking before the CCJ justices, Hughes said, “We are not challenging the conviction; we do not remotely attempt to challenging the gravity they were particularly horrendous, we do not challenge the imposition of life imprisonment and we certainly do not challenge the power of Court of Appeal to fix minimum parole periods.”
The essence of their move to the CCJ is that the minimum periods arrived at by the COA were reached by an “unlawful, unprincipled, and disproportionate exercise of the sentencing discretion.”
He said the COA fell into error in its application of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole until after 40 years, which is “erroneous.”
Hughes outlined that Caesar’s conviction arose from a plea of guilty to manslaughter, which was accepted by the State. He noted that in this case, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, adding that the reduced sentence by the COA took rehabilitation into account, citing the Court’s decision to impose a period of eligibility for parole.
However, he argued that the period for eligibility for parole had to be a realistic period, saying he believes the COA fell into error when applying the principles governing the period for eligibility.
Hughes’ argument was based on the consideration that the mere possibility of parole by the COA opened the door to the belief that rehabilitation is possible.
Life expectancy
Another argument Hughes introduced was based on life expectancy, arguing that if it had been a case of life without parole, it would show that rehabilitation is not possible. “For example, if you are 60, a 40 years sentence would be unlawful, because it exceeds the maximum,” he noted.
While he did not offer a prognosis on when his client is likely to die, Hughes explained that with his client being 35 at the time of sentencing, Caesar would be approximately 75 years old before becoming eligible for parole. “Life expectancy is 62, the Court of Appeal accepted that figure. A sentence where the court thinks parole is part of the sentence ought to be consistent with the average lifespan of Guyanese at that time,” Hughes said.
Heinous crimes
On the other hand, the Director of Public Prosecutions maintains that the sentences imposed were appropriate and befitting the gravity and heinous nature of the offences.
In her address, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Diana O’Brien pointed to statistics by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and noted that using life expectancy in a sentencing process is not recommended.
“We are respectfully saying that using that as part of the mathematical exercise as a justification is fundamentally unstable because of the fluctuations…” she said, pointing to statistics used by the applicant based on statistics from the WHO, which most recent figures are based on 2021. A male’s average life expectancy was 63 years old and generally 66 years.
O’Brien, however, contended that the aforementioned would have taken into account the COVID-19 pandemic, which would have caused a decline in overall life expectancy.
“By comparison for instance in 2016 when the appellant would have been convicted the male life expectancy was 64.3 and overall, it would have been 67.6…” she noted.
O’Brien argued that life expectancy being a major consideration in the case “is a moving goal post”, adding that it can vary.
She further noted that their position is based on jurisprudence which defines life as natural life. The Deputy DPP acknowledged that there is jurisprudence suggesting that where a sentence could be as high as 70 years, it may be appropriate to impose life imprisonment instead.
O’Brien added that while several countries in the region have legislation, case law or sentencing guidelines specifying periods that would be equivalent to a life sentence, it is not the same for Guyana.
Natural life
However, she said Guyana has no such established figure, noting that even in cases where the issue of a sentence exceeding life imprisonment has been discussed, no precise period has been set for Guyana, where the position remains that life imprisonment means natural life.
“But the reality is in Guyana that we don’t have such a figure coming out even in the cases that have been discussed as to what exceeds life, there is nothing that has been set out precisely for Guyana to say in Guyana this would exceed life because the position remains life is natural life…” the Deputy DPP said.
Further, she noted that while the maximum penalty is deemed to be life imprisonment, case law deems life as natural life, but there is still no figure in terms of what natural life equates to.
It was proposed that stakeholders become involved in determining the proper jurisprudential principles on which to base life imprisonment without parole.
For his part, Hughes said he is in favour of scientific consultations and recommendations, noting that as much as the public is entitled to their views, it will have to be captured in a scope that will be used to identify principles.
Meanwhile, O’Brien did not disagree with the Court getting inputs from stakeholders on the question of life expectancy. She expressed concerns about how it would be done, whether hypothetically and how directly it can be applied to the appellant at this stage, but noted that consultations with different arms of society are not opposed.
The CCJ justices are President of the CCJ Winston Anderson, Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Justice Denys Barrow, Justice Peter Jamadar, Justice Chantal Ononaiwu, Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji and Justice Arif Bulkan.
The matters before the Court involved Mark Royden Williams, Dennis Williams, Clebert Reece and Michael Caesar.
On January 26, 2008, the men were involved in the Lusignan massacre, one of the most brutal killings in Guyana’s history. During that attack, 11 people between the ages of four and 52 were shot and killed in their homes.
Later, on February 17, 2008, the gunmen attacked Bartica, firing at police officers at the Bartica Police Station and elsewhere in the community. The gang eventually fled using a boat moored at the Bartica Stelling. Before leaving, one of the gunmen opened fire on passengers at the stelling, ordering them to lie face down before escaping. Twelve people were killed that day, including three members of the Guyana Police Force.
Source: Kaieteur News
