Court gets a lesson in religion

DEFENCE attorney Pamela Elder took a novel point in law yesterday when she asked for an inquiry to be conducted because State witness Brent Danglade, a Muslim, swore on the Bible before he started his testimony in the preliminary inquiry. Danglade, 26, swore on the Bible when he started his evidence on Tuesday. Before he was cross-examined yesterday, he again swore on the Bible. Minutes into his cross-examination yesterday, Elder stopped and informed Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls that the witness had not taken the proper oath. Elder said that Danglade had admitted being a Muslim, yet still he swore on the Bible. She said for his testimony to be lawful, the witness should have sworn on the Koran. “This has serious implications, not for this case alone, but for other cases.

If this witness is found to have told untruths, then a question of perjury does not arise because he did not take a lawful oath.” Elder called on the Chief Magistrate to determine whether Danglade took the oath which was binding on his own conscience. She said a “voir dire” had to be conducted to determine the validity of the oath taken by the witness. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Carla Brown-Antoine said she was taken by surprise by the submission, but stated this did not invalidate the evidence that was given by Danglade on Tuesday. “There is no evidence that what the witness did was wrong. If the witness says that he is bound by the Bible, then we go on.  If there is anything inadmissible, it will be what my learned friend led today.” Mc Nicolls said he did not think he had the authority to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Elder replied, “What we have here is a Muslim swearing on the Bible.” Mc Nicolls said, “The witness must give an explanation as to why he swore on the Bible rather than the Koran.” Brown-Antoine: “I am not agreeing to a “voire dire” at this stage.”

Elder said she was in favour of the Chief Magistrate asking the witness questions on the issue yesterday. “Because, his situation may change as to his religious beliefs. He may leave here believing that he is a Muslim, and when he returns he may believe in anything.” Mc Nicolls said he needed time to consider the matter. He returned 27 minutes later with a decision. He said he consulted with the DPP (as he is required to do under the Act), and was referred to a passage in the Archbold. But Elder said this was not an issue of credibility but whether the witness was properly sworn. “It is imperative that the witness take the proper oath. Credibility will come after. This situation will cause alarm, it is something serious,” she added. She asked, “What if a Christian goes into the witness box and swears on the Koran?” Brown-Antoine said there were no grounds for holding a “voir dire” at this stage as to the competence of the witness.  “What is important is what was the oath taken at the time, it is not what you believe in.” Elder replied, “what is the oath without the book? It is a combination of both. This should cause judicial eyebrows to be raised. This is why we should have an inquiry.” The witness was recalled and questions posed to him by the Chief Magistrate.  He admitted taking the oath on the Bible and that he was going to talk the truth, and that it was binding on him to speak the truth. Hearing continues on October 30.