Convicted postal worker appeals against ‘unfair trial’

In light of this complaint, she is asking the Court of Appeal to arrest the judgment of trial judge Justice Mark Mohammed and/or the verdict of the jury — finding her guilty on June 16, 2004, at the San Fernando Second Assizes. Sankarsingh’s sentences will be reduced to seven years since they are to run concurrently.

Her complaint is that prosecutor at the trial, Assistant DPP Joan Honore-Paul, was allegedly seen talking to members of the jury and pointing to something on a flip chart containing evidence which had been given by witnesses for the prosecution, and reduced into chart form.

Her complaint was supported somewhat by a female police officer who was in court at the time, and a law clerk. However, the damaging substance of the allegations was denied by a female marshal assigned to that court.

In another affidavit, Curtis Joseph, a retired Petrotrin supervisor and at the time a church administrator, said he overheard a woman tell another woman that she was the girlfriend of one of the jurors in Sankarsingh’s trial, and that this was the third time that Sankarsingh had become involved in this kind of trouble.

The incident is alleged to have occurred on June 9, 2004. On that day, Honore-Paul was expected to address the jury, but was unable to do so because of the absence of defence attorney Indra Ramoutar-Liverpool, who was ill.

It was not until after the jury’s verdict that Sankarsingh and Joseph had brought their information to the attention of Sankarsingh’s attorney, Ramoutar-Liverpool.

At that point, affidavits were filed, with a motion before Justice Mohammed, to arrest the judgment and/or verdict. The judge turned down the motion.

Yesterday, at Sankarsingh’s appeal before Justices Roger Hamel-Smith, Stanley John and Paula Mae Weekes, special State prosecutor Dana Seetahal sought an adjournment from the court in order to look over the notes of evidence at the trial to determine exactly what had transpired.

Seetahal also told the court that the affidavits were not in evidence before Justice Mohammed, since they were not put in during the course of the trial and, therefore, if Sankarsingh now wants to put them in, she should make an application for fresh evidence.

Sankarsingh’s attorney, Ravi Rajcoomar, contended that the affidavits were part of the evidence and, therefore, there should be no application for fresh evidence.

Not wanting to take any chances, the court decided that an application for fresh evidence should be made.

The matter was then adjourned.