Lawyers bicker over disclosure

DEFENCE attorney Pamela Elder yesterday accused Deputy DPP Carla Brown-Antoine of breaching two principles of the law involving disclosure. The accusation arose out of a debate over two documents used by State witness Sgt Wayne Dick of the Port-of-Spain Homicide Division to refresh his memory and correct earlier evidence given in the preliminary inquiry into the conspiracy to murder charge laid against Jamaat Al Muslimeen leader, Imam Yasin Abu Bakr.

The two documents in question were a desk diary record entry made by Dick and a Forensic Science Centre record, both relevant to the case against the imam. Dick was being questioned by Brown-Antoine about the contents of the records at the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Eighth Court before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls.  According to Elder, the defence was entitled to disclosure of the contents of the documents as governed by the “memory refreshing rule.”  Inconsistencies in the witness’ testimony and a written documented necessitated the disclosure, she added. She said when Dick was cross-examined on the last occasion and had requested available records to “refresh his memory,” no mention had been made of a desk diary entry. She reminded the court that he had then referred to an entry in the station diary and entries in his two pocket diaries. The station diary had then been picked up at the Sackville Street, Port-of-Spain  Homicide office and brought to the court by State attorney George Busby.

Elder argued that Dick could not now use references which she did not have copies of. If Brown-Antoine wished to lead this evidence, she said, the prosecutor was then obligated to disclose the document sources to which Dick had referred subsequent to his testimony which required him to now change his oral evidence given under oath. Brown-Antoine agreed that Elder was entitled to view the records and assured the defence attorney that copies of the documents would be forwarded to her. However, she added, Elder could not prevent her from continuing with her line of questioning prior to her (Elder’s) receipt of the records. Elder objected on the grounds that she might wish to raise objections to some of the contents of the prosecutor’s line of questioning. Mc Nicolls ruled in favour of the defence and ordered the prosecution to forward copies of the documents to the defence before she could proceed with the re-examination of Dick with reference to the records in question.

The record of the desk diary was immediately made available to Elder to peruse and Brown-Antoine told the magistrate she would make a request from the relevant personnel at the Forensic Science Centre for a copy of their record. The matter was stood down until 2.30 pm when it was expected that a copy of the document would be available. When the matter was called again, however, Brown-Antoine informed Mc Nicolls that the officer assigned to bring the document to the court was delayed in traffic. While the court waited on the arrival of the document, another witness was called to give evidence. Sgt Clyde Phillip of the Firearm Interdiction Unit was examined by Brown-Antoine and cross-examined by junior defence attorney, Owen Hinds Jnr. When the officer finally arrived with the document, a further re-examination and cross- examination of Dick was conducted by Brown-Antoine and Elder. Hearing will resume on November 4.