WHY HALL OF JUSTICE?

Would it not have been better for arrangements to have been made for the conspiracy to murder trial of the Imam of the Jamaat-al-Muslimeen, Yasin Abu Bakr, to be held at a venue other than at the Hall of Justice, located in heavily trafficked downtown Port-of-Spain, given the number of potential jurors called — 1,163 — and the interest generated? What would have been required would have been for Attorney General John Jeremie to have consulted with Chief Justice Sat Sharma, after having identified a building away from congested downtown Port-of-Spain, with space for a courtroom able to hold a larger than usual number of lawyers, visitors and security personnel; separate areas which could readily accommodate the potential jurors and adequate space for parking.

An ideal place would have been the building in Chaguaramas whose ground floor had been constituted several years ago into a court initially for the trial of Dole Chadee and others on a charge of murder. Unfortunately, it was surrendered to the Regiment after being allowed to fall into a state of relative disuse. While, admittedly, the Hall of Justice is the building constructed for and designated as the place housing the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal in Port-of-Spain, nonetheless because of the unusually high number of prospective jurors and security detail, apart from the audience interest aroused, Tuesday’s opening day of the conspiracy to murder trial resulted in a number of problems being identified. Traffic interruptions were horrendous. In addition, there was the physical discomfort of the 1,100 plus jurors that the makeshift arrangements failed either to note or to ease.

In turn, the lack of fire exits, which should have been addressed before plans for the buildings were approved by the Town and Country Planning Division, posed a possible serious threat to the lives and well being of the swollen number of persons occupying the Hall of Justice on Tuesday including judges, State and defence lawyers in the various matters, staff, jurors, media representatives, members of the Protective Services, visitors and the downright curious. The potential danger to all was even more pronounced because, save for a facility reserved for judges, there was only one entry and exit point for the many who were in the building. Suppose a fire had broken out in the Hall of Justice on Tuesday, or suppose one should break out, although heaven forbid, on any day of the trial?

In addition, the reported complaint of persons called for jury duty that they had not been provided with anything to eat until afternoon, could have proven clearly more serious than the mere discomfort of hunger pangs, had some of them been diabetic, with specified times by which they were required to eat. A report in yesterday’s Newsday noted that it was not until 2 pm, that snacks arrived for the potential jurors, and worse, not all of them had been made aware of it.

Why were alternative arrangements not made for the holding of the trial in a less congested area, in a place without the potential for needless discomfort and even hazards which the Hall of Justice presented? The authorities had since the middle of September at the latest to seek more suitable accommodation, yet nothing appears to have been done. But even beyond Tuesday’s events, why did the authorities not recognise much earlier in the history of the Hall of Justice the clear danger posed by a virtual one entry, one exit public building with the added ingredient of no fire exits. Is the relevant Ministry waiting for something to happen before acting?