The Privy Council is being asked to determine if a court can substitute a sentence other than life when the death sentence is commuted.

The appeal was filed by the Attorney General in the case of Naresh Boodram, who was convicted of murder on November 27, 1996, and sentenced to death for murdering Anthony "Tooks" Greenidge and Stephen “Bulls” Sandy in 1992.

In 2007, Boodram filed proceedings to have his death sentence quashed and to be re-sentenced by the High Court.

His sentence was commuted to life on the basis that the court did not have the discretion to re-sentence him.

Boodram appealed and the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was not constrained to impose a sentence of life imprisonment and can re-sentence with clearly defined prison terms. It sent the case back to the High Court to consider an appropriate sentence.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling benefited some 82 death row inmates.

The court held sentencing judges had a full range of sentencing powers available to them and a discretion to impose prison terms other than life.

“There is no logical reason why the sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed carte blanche upon every person who has their sentence commuted. That is inherently arbitrary and potentially disproportionate,” said Chief Justice Ivor Archie, who delivered the Appeal Court’s ruling in 2018.

“The circumstances of each murder are different and a court properly seized of the relevant facts would be able to substitute the appropriate sentence.”

The ruling was made in Boodram’s constitutional challenge. The Appeal Court also held that the appeal was of significant constitutional importance.

In the appeal at the Privy Council, the Attorney General wants the court to determine the nature and limits of the High Court’s discretion to re-sentence.

Representing the State at the Privy Council is Queen’s, Counsel Howard Stephens.

In his submissions, Stephens said it was wrong for the Court of Appeal to allow for set terms of sentences because of the mandatory nature of the death penalty for murder.

He said regardless of facts, everyone convicted of murder should get the same sentence.

"Parliament decided all murderers should die, regardless of the nature of the crime they committed.”

Stephens suggested an alternative remedy for those whose sentence was commuted to life was to seek a presidential pardon.

He also pointed to the grievous nature of the crime committed by Boodram, in which his victims had been mutilated and disembowelled before being buried in a rice field, and said it called for a life sentence.

In a separate appeal, in which a decision has been reserved, the Privy Council is also being asked to consider making the death penalty for murder discretionary rather than mandatory.

Presiding over the appeal are Lords Lloyd-Jones, Sales, Hamblen, Stephens, and Sir Tim Holroyde, who set aside two days for hearing the appeal and cross-appeal by Boodram who is seeking his costs in his constitutional challenge.

In response to the arguments for the Sta