In the past week the CHS-JCCSS website received 681 visits from the following 12 countries: Brazil | Canada | Guyana | Israel | Italy |Norway |Pakistan |Romania | Spain |USA | UK | Venezuela |[Source: Google Analytics]

Diwali marks the end of the harvest season in most of India. Farmers are thankful for the plentiful bounty of the year gone by, and pray for a good harvest for the year to come. Traditionally this marked the closing of accounts for businesses dependent on the agrarian cycle, and the last major celebration before winter. The deity of Lakshmi symbolizes wealth and prosperity, and her blessings are invoked for a good year ahead.

There is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal.  Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Deepavali is the celebration of this Inner Light, in particular the knowing of which outshines all darkness (removes all obstacles and dispels all ignorance), awakening the individual to one’s true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite reality. With this realization comes universal compassion, love, and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Ananda (Inner Joy or Peace).

Pls correct my Dad’s info on the CHS-JCCS website; he graduated in 1950 (Seepersaud Seecharran – better known to his peers as “Shakespeare”).  Thanks very much (I had promised him to fix that and I keep forgetting) – I think he is down as graduated in 1957.

This is the greatest of all high school websites!!

Jax Seecharran ‘75

It is a pleasure to visit this site. Everyone involved must be commended.   Kindly change the spelling of my brother’s name the correct spelling is Shaun Baksh.  Please include the following names of my family in the  list of graduating names:  Kadiroon Baksh – Class of 1963; Bibi Shairoon Baksh – Class of 1966;  Jamiroon Baksh – Class of 1967; Shaun Baksh – Class of 1966;  Bibi Faridun Baksh – Class of 1970; Khairoon Baksh – Class of 1972.  Thank you very much, and keep up the good work.

Regards

Shamie Baksh

May I congratulate all the people who have provided this site. Thank you. I am so impressed to see the names of classmates of 1973 class. I would dearly love to connect with Rohilya Persaud, Kamini Bhairam and Hannah Ramsammy (Williamsburg). Does anyone have any contact details of these classmates?  If so, please let me have them. You are welcome to give them my email address.

 Sandra Lawrence (nee Rikkhi)

Murder on the high seas – the story of Deokinanan     

FORTY-three years ago, a greedy fisherman named Deokinanan murdered three sailors of the vessel ‘Miss Carol’ on the high seas, Corentyne River, and enriched himself by $12, 000 and 1500 guilders.  The killer then removed the seacock from the launch, causing it to take in water and sink. From there he swam to Powis Island in the Corentyne River, where he hid the coveted money under the roots of a marked tree.

On his return journey to Springlands, Corentyne, Deokinanan fabricated a story to Amerindian villagers, to the effect that the launch ‘Miss Carol’ had sunk after being involved in a collision at sea with another craft. He said he was unaware of what happened to the crew members– Motie Singh, known as `Baboon’, Heera and Dindial.

Big Corentyne Sawmiller Raghubar had employed Motie Singh, paid him $2, 000, and had given him $10, 000 and 1500 guilders to purchase lumber in the Corentyne River on his behalf. Deokinanan and the two others were employed to accompany Motie on the buying expedition up river with the launch ‘Miss Carol’. During the trip, Deokinanan conceived the murder/robbery plan and committed the crime while the men were asleep.

After the badly mutilated bodies of the three men were found floating in the Corentyne River, Deokinanan was held by the Berbice Police for questioning.  It might have been the perfect crime, had it not been for the fact that while in Police custody, Deokinanan, wanting to secure the hidden booty, sought the help of his trusted friend, Balchand, whom he told where the money was hidden and sent him on a mission to collect same.

Balchand was no longer the trusted friend of a rogue, and while undertaking the job to use his motorboat to go in search of the booty, he informed the police of the transaction.

The search was carried out under Police surveillance. The money was found by Balchand who was later given a list by Deokinanan setting out how the money should be distributed. Balchand himself was to be given a tidy sum for the task he had undertaken, while some of the booty was to be used to suborn two potential witnesses.

But through arrangements by the police, Balchand and Deokinanan were placed in a single cell at the Whim Magistrate’s Court, from where Deokinanan confessed the crime to his friend.  On the basis of the confession, Deokinanan was arrested and charged with the high seas murder. At his first jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced to death, but was freed y the Court of Appeal. That Court found that the local Court did not have jurisdiction to try the matter.

Deokinanan was subjected to another trial at which the Prosecution had overcome the problem of jurisdiction. He was again sentenced to death. His appeals to the Guyana Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were dismissed. He was subsequently executed by hanging.

At the hearing of the appeal before Chancellor Kenneth Stoby and Justices of Appeal, E. V. Luckhoo and P. A. Cummings, the appellant was represented by Mr. Fred Wills, S.C., while Mr. E. A. Romao, the Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting), appeared for the Crown.

On appeal, it was held by Chancellor Stoby and Justice of Appeal Luckhoo that (i) Balchand was not a person in authority because:

(a) in the prisoner’s mind, Balchand was a friend who could carry out his instructions, not someone who would influence the course of the prosecution, but someone who would help illegally to destroy the evidence;

(b) Justice of Appeal had said that nothing in the second conversation could be interpreted as signifying to the prisoner that he would derive some advantage in relation to the charge against him if he answered the two questions asked, or said anything.

(ii) the evidence of the confession was accordingly admissible;

(iii) Chancellor Stoby had said too that there was no necessity to aver that the crime was committed in foreign territorial waters. It was enough to say that it was committed “on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty”;

(iv) the point on the Corentyne River where the offence took place was geographically within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty;

(v) According to Justice of Appeal Cummings (concurring) the evidence that the launch was owned by a British subject was enough to prove that the launch was a British Ship for the purpose of Admiralty jurisdiction;

Cummings (dissenting) said: (i) prior to visiting the prisoner in the prison, Balchand had, in effect, become a sort of private detective being used by the police and might have been regarded by the prisoner as a friend who was in the strategic position of an ad hoc policeman. Balchand was consequently a person in authority.

(ii) the confession was made by the prisoner to Balchand pursuant to an inducement to help which was held out by Balchand. Such inducement was at least in part in relation to an advantage to be gained by the prisoner with respect to the charge.

(iii) the confession was consequently inadmissible, Cummings had said.

However, by a majority decision, the appeal was dismissed. By a majority decision the conviction and death sentence were also affirmed. 

It was noted that the appellant was on November 23, 1965 convicted on an indictment charging him with the murder of Motie Singh between October 23 and 24, 1963, on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, and was sentenced to death. On his appeal some attempt was made to argue that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to try the appellant, despite the averment in the indictment and the evidence pertaining thereto.

After referring to the Ordinance, Justice Luckhoo had said, “On the evidence, the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England was legally established and by virtue of the above provisions, it was within the competence of the Supreme Court to try the indictment as laid which fell within and complied with those provisions. 

- George Barclay

In the past week the CHS-JCCSS website received 635 visits from the following 10 countries: Bahamas | British Virgin Islands | Canada | Guyana | Jamaica | Netherlands | Romania | Spain |USA | UK | [Source: Google Analytics]