Retrial for Bakr

YASIN ABU BAKR, the leader of the Jamaat al Muslimeen, will have to stand trial a second time on a charge of conspiring to murder two expelled members Salim Rasheed and Zaki Aubaidah. The much-publicised first trial ended yesterday with a hung jury. The jury, which had been sequestered for seven weeks, could not reach a unanimous decision, neither could they get to a 8-1 majority or a 7-2 majority as required under the Jury Act. It ended in a 6-3 deadlock. No one in the court was told if the majority was for conviction or acquittal, but Newsday was informed that the majority was for an acquittal. The failure by the jury to reach a verdict was an anti-climax to a trial which started on January 4 and which gripped the nation’s attention by what had been revealed.

The process will have to start all over again, with the questioning of potential jurors, pre-trial issues, and then into the main trial featuring two witnesses who were described as persons with bad characters and criminals. It was a day when everyone was expecting drama at the Hall of Justice. Justice Mark Mohammed had indicated on Tuesday that he needed only an hour yesterday to complete his summation. He kept his promise, taking 65 minutes to complete the final address to the nine-member panel and two alternates. Before the jury was sent to the jury room, the foreman said he wanted to ask a question — “Please define what is meant by beyond reasonable doubt.” Justice Mohammed replied, “It means that you must be sure.” There was a buzz around the Port-of-Spain Third Criminal Court as “certain experts” put their own spin on the foreman’s request.

The jury retired to consider the verdict. Imam Bakr was then accompanied by several police officers to the basement of the Hall of Justice to await the jury’s verdict. The judge released the two alternate jurors from duty, but one waited for the final decision. The court had been packed with  undercover police officers and soldiers. There was little room for supporters of the accused. There was limited space for the Muslimeen members, including two of Bakr’s wives Fatima and Indrani and two of his sons Ayinde and Fuad. A number of Muslimeen members remained outside arguing with the MTS and security officials as to why they were not allowed to sit in the court. By the time the jury retired, the support for the Muslimeen leader had grown. The foyer of the Hall of Justice was filled with persons in Muslim wear. It soon became obvious that the jury was going the full distance of three hours. During this period, Commissioner of Police Trevor Paul made a surprise visit to the Hall of Justice.

With half an hour to go, there was a mad rush to the security scanner. But more bacchanal. The court was already filled with security personnel. The quarrelling started again as the Muslimeen supporters wanted to be in court for the most important part of the trial — the verdict. The jury returned at 1.20 pm to complete silence. When asked by the court clerk if they had reached a verdict in which they all agreed, the foreman replied “no.” Not a man moved as everyone pondered the judge’s next move. Justice Mohammed sent the jury back to the jury room as he sought assistance from counsel on both sides. The jury returned five minutes later. Justice Mohammed then asked the foreman, “do you think that if the jury is given more time, you may be able to arrive at a verdict upon which you all agree?” The foreman replied, “No, sir.” Justice Mohammed said: ‘Without disclosing in whose favour the majority be, will you please let the court know how you are divided, such as 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, or 8-1.”

The foreman: “6-3.” British Queen’s Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel, the lead prosecutor, asked the judge, “is there any chance that more jurors will join the majority if given more time?” Justice Mohammed: “The foreman said even if they are given more time, they will not agree.” Cassel: “There is a possibility that one or two in the minority may change if given more time. Justice Mohammed then sent the jury to the jury room as he sought advice from attorneys. The judge retired to his chambers for 25 minutes to ponder his next move. When he returned, lead defence attorney Pamela Elder SC told the judge that considering his inquiry and the fact that he got the division of the jury, he should not send them back to see if they could reach a majority decision. Elder said she can find no legal authority to show that after the division is taken, the jury could be sent back for further deliberations.

Cassel said he was advised by Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson not to resist Elder’s submission. Justice Mohammed felt that  were he to send the jury back for further deliberations, that could have been interpreted to be some kind of pressure being put on them. The jury was recalled at 2.15 pm Justice Mohammed told the jury that having regard to their 6-3 division, he has no choice but to order a re-trial for Bakr. He told the jury that this has been a long trial and that they had been in sequestration for the better part of the case. The judge thanked the jurors for performing their civic duty by serving and he discharged them from sequestration. He also thanked the attorneys for their assistance during the ten-week trial. Everything was over by 2.20 pm, but the talk had just begun. Bakr left the courtroom and held a impromptu meeting with his supporters in the foyer. It lasted ten minutes before he left the court building to the chants of “Allah U Ackbar” (God is Great). About 30 of his supporters followed him to Abercromby Street under the watchful eyes of a handful of members of the Guard and Emergency Branch (GEB).

Bakr trial may cost $5M

THE first trial is over, but the State will begin paying its bills for the last ten weeks. A preliminary count revealed that the State has to put out $5 million with a second trial looming on the horizon. From the outset, the Director of Public Prosecutions retained British Queen’s Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel to head the prosecution’s team. Cassel had to be paid a retainer and a daily fee for the duration of the trial. Before the case was called on January 4, the Judiciary put in place certain security measures. A certain part of the first floor of the Hall of Justice was cordoned off with partitions. Four security cameras were installed in the Port-of-Spain Third Criminal Court so that potential jurors could follow what was happening in the courtroom. Television screens were also rented by the State.

The court had to deploy an additional staff of MTS personnel and brought in more scanners to facilitate the flow of persons at the Hall of Justice. With the chaos of 1,100 potential jurors on the first day, the Judiciary had to order snacks and lunches each day for all of these persons until a jury was selected.  This lasted days before a jury and five alternates were found. The Judiciary had to rent chairs for these potential jurors. After the jury was finally selected, Justice Mark Mohammed ordered that they be sequestered. Fourteen jurors and four marshals took up residence at Crowne Plaza Hotel for the last seven weeks. According to information received, it cost the State US$300 a day for each juror and marshal at the hotel for a minimum period of 50 days. There was also the rental of a bus to take the jurors to and from the hotel when they were required in court.