Accused in laughing mood

DEFENCE attorney Gillian Lucky yesterday accused Deputy DPP Carla Brown-Antoine of lacking a clear understanding of the rules of disclosure. Prior to the start of her cross-examination of State witness PC Krishenlal Nanan of the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau, Lucky indicated that she had faxed a letter to the office of the DPP requesting a copy of one of the documents which had been tendered into evidence on Tuesday. The letter, she said, had been addressed to Brown-Antoine.  “This morning, up to this time, the defence has not received the document,” Lucky said. “Clearly the rules of disclosure have not been fully understood by the prosecution,” she added.

Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls, however, unfazed by the defence attorney’s speech, remarked, “The document was disclosed yesterday and was in the custody of the court. You could have asked the court for a copy.” He then instructed one of the officers in the courtroom to produce a copy of the document for Lucky, while she proceeded with her interrogation of Nanan. Some of her occasional snide remarks directed at the witness invoked snickers from accused Rene Pierre, Barbara Gomes and Steve Ferguson. The other five, Ishwar Galbaransingh, John Henry Smith, Russel Huggins, Amrith Maharaj and Brian Kuei Tung sat with sombre expressions on their faces. The eight are facing a total of 21 charges related to the new terminal development at the Piarco International Airport. Shortly before 11.30 am, Nanan was, for the second time in two days, dispatched by Mc Nicolls to the “vault” of the Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau to fetch four of the “over one million” documents that had been accumulated during the State’s investigation. On his return, the documents were tendered into evidence and the officer was cross-examined by Frank Solomon SC. 

A decision was taken by lead prosecutor Karl Hudson-Phillips QC to re-examine the witness with reference to the documents that were, moments before, admitted into evidence. However, after the first question, he was brought to a halt with an objection from Solomon. The two butted heads for all of five minutes about what constituted re-examination. “Re-examination can only be done in areas of ambiguity uncovered under cross-examination,” Solomon insisted. Mc Nicolls upheld the objection and suggested to Hudson-Phillips that he could explore the option of leading new evidence. The second State witness, Assistant Supt Wayne Boyd, will begin giving evidence today.