Lawyers differ on killer’s level of culpability

Attorneys yesterday differed on the level of culpability which should be ascribed to triple killer Ramario Antonio Roach.

Senior Counsel Andrew Pilgrim said Roach’s level of culpability was low as a result of his diminished responsibility, while State Counsel Paul Prescod countered the level was high, despite the State accepting diminished responsibility.

Roach, now 24, of Ocean Breeze, River Bay, St Lucy, was back in the No. 4 Supreme Court where he was originally accused of murdering Tyrone Austin on December 18, 2018; murdering his mother Joann Roach between January 18 and 21, 2019, and murdering university lecturer Dr Sarah Sutrina between January 20 and 22, 2019. He was 18 at the time.

Manslaughter

He pleaded not guilty to the murders but guilty to manslaughter – unlawfully killing them – by diminished responsibility on the same dates. He was represented by Pilgrim and attorney Kyle Walkes.

Director of Public Prosecutions Alliston Seale SC and Prescod, appeared for the prosecution.

“We’re saying his culpability would have to be low, diminished, because of his mental capacity, and it would be difficult for the court to come to a conclusion that he should get a long sentence when his culpability is low,” Pilgrim argued.

“To sentence him to a whole life sentence is unjust and illegal,” he added.

Justice Laurie-Ann Smith-Bovell responded: “Yes, there is diminished responsibility, but three people are dead in less than a month and if I do the indeterminate sentence, and he is good to go and released, I do not want another three people dead.”

Mutilated

Prescod declared that Roach’s case was not one “for a hospital order”.

He said the killer mutilated a man on December 18; decapitated his mother the next month, January, and then mutilated the university lecturer, taking out her heart and kidney.

“We are not saying his culpability is minimal. The State is saying his culpability is high given there are three people dead and how they were killed,” he said.

The State Counsel suggested the court impose sentences of 20 years for each count and order that they run consecutively.

The matter was subsequently adjourned with a date to be fixed.

In relation to the killing of his mother, the court had heard that Roach went to River Bay with her. They both walked into the watercourse where he struck her several times with a rock and then sliced her throat. He then struck her head repeatedly until he severed it from the body.

The body was discovered days later in a decomposed state.

When he was interviewed by police, Roach dictated a statement in which he claimed his father had whispered to him to kill his mother.

He stated that his father took up a rock and hit his mother’s head while he cut her throat. He then took up a rock and bashed her head.

“Then I say to myself, ‘Me and my father shouldn’t have killed my mother’,” the statement continued before he detailed the rest of the events.

Investigators, however, found no evidence to prove the culpability of the father and place him before the court.

In relation to Austin’s killing, his body was discovered in a track at Paradise Heights, St Michael, by a university student.

Boulder

Roach, who used a boulder to smash Austin’s head, told police he had killed the man “because he was confusing me about money. I sorry. I was vex when I do this”.

He also struck university lecturer Sutrina in the head with a rock before stabbing her several times.

He raped her body after he killed her before cutting off her left breast, pulling out her intestines and cutting out her heart and left kidney. Those organs were never found. (HLE)

The post Lawyers differ on killer’s level of culpability appeared first on nationnews.com.