Chef loses bid to overturn manslaughter conviction By Matthew Taylor © Copyright by The Royal Gazette Ltd Bermuda, June 23, 2000 A St. George's chef who killed a young German student while driving under the influence has lost his bid to overturn his conviction for manslaughter. Bissoonduthsing Ramchurn was given five years in April after he had driven into 23-year-old Catrin Schaefer, who had been celebrating the end of a week-long biology trip to the Island. She died from head injuries after being flung into the air after Ramchurn's car crossed onto her side of Kindley Field Road and hit her bike at Stonecrusher Corner in September, 1998. Ramchurn was given five years for manslaughter and three for causing a death while driving drunk. The sentences are running concurrently. But his lawyer Phil Perinchief argued that Assistant Justice Philip Storr should not have allowed alternate charges of manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving to go before the jury. But the Appeal Court found no fault in this. Mr. Perinchief also said Mr. Storr failed to give sufficient direction on the high degree of negligence needed to prove manslaughter - a charge the Bench rejected. However Mr. Storr was criticised for giving the directions for causing death by reckless driving when dealing with the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. The judgment, handed down yesterday, concluded: "The evidence for the Crown showed the appellant was traveling at a high rate of speed around a corner on the incorrect side of the road. "His ability to operate his vehicle was impaired as a result of excessive consumption of alcohol. "Both the appellant's car and bike were extensively damaged, indicating a collision at high speed. "The rider of the bike was sent airborne for a considerable distance and the car came to a stop some 75 feet from the impact. "Also, the appellant failed to apply the brakes of the car either before or after the impact. "On a consideration of the summing up on a whole, we are satisfied that it was adequate. "The evidence amounted to recklessness and a high degree of negligence which the prosecution was required to prove. The verdict of the jury was inevitable." Return to article overview.