“Carson Anthony Ismael….had pleaded guilty to manslaughter earlier in the Continuous Assizes. Calista Alleyne, whose throat was cut, died on May 26, 2010. Ismael had previously been convicted of causing the death of his former wife Kirani Ismael back in January 2007. The charge had been assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was sentenced to 16 months in jail for that offense, suspended for two years.” “Study ordered on manslayer”, Midweek Nation
“How dare someone take the life of someone else in a jealous rage and then follow it up with the most cowardly act of drinking a poisonous substance, unable to face the consequences of one’s actions?” Janelle Husbands, December 10 Advocate
Consequences, Ms. Husbands? In Barbados? Where the Director of Public Prosecutions is only too eager to see manslayers as opposed to murderers? Where the average sentence for men who kill their partners is 5 years in prison? Where in an understatement of appalling proportions Mr. Ismael, who has now killed two female partners in less than five years, is deemed in need of “anger management counseling” in the probation report furnished to the court. Really?! Only in Islamic countries would the leniency shown to the killers of women in Barbados seem harsh.
I have heard a lot of comments about the Director of Public Prosecutions giving Bjerkhamn a slap on the wrist for killing his son. Some have even called the DPP’s integrity into question. While I understand the sense of outrage that is being demonstrated throughout the country, I am not one of those that would jump on the bandwagon without a clear understanding of what transpired.
Persons who have been critical of the DPP’s actions in this case clearly do not know or do not understand the procedure in Barbados. It would appear that their understanding of the law is being influenced by American television programmes. The first problem for the DPP is that his office does not have an investigative arm. He has to rely on the Police to investigate cases and then they would forward their findings to him so that he can decide whether or not to file a charge. The public does not know what is in the police report, so the DPP could very well be taking some undeserved abuse for a situation over which he had no control. Before I can come down on either side, I would have to be privy to the police report.
This case clearly demonstrates that the evidence in matters like this should be made available to the public after the conclusion of the case, and after the time for the appeals process has expired.