Miller should have signed a statutory declaration

JUSTICE Mark Mohammed completed his summation to the jury yesterday morning. It lasted more than seven hours during which he gave directions and summarised the evidence in the case. Yesterday, in winding up his summation, Mohammed stated that accomplice witness Brent Miller should have signed a statutory declaration to say that statements he had given to the police on July 7 and 24, 2003, were true and correct. The following is the final part of the summation: When the adjournment was taken yesterday, I had just finished summing up the case for the accused and his two witnesses. I wish to touch on an area I dealt with yesterday, one of two background factors when you come to look at the credibility and reliability of Brent Miller and Brent Danglade. I want to return to the topic of the immunity.

I told you that an immunity is an agreement and that the DPP under the Constitution is entitled to give an immunity. The accomplice Brent Miller must keep his end to the four conditions set out, which according to condition one — “that the statements of Brent Miller also called Big Brent, Fatman and made on the 7th of July, 2003 and the 24th of July, 2003 are true to the best of the knowledge and belief of the said Brent Miller also called Big Brent and Fatman.” You will have to determine whether on Sunday the 28th of September at the office of the DPP, that Brent Miller had been expressly asked if the two statements were true before the finalising of the immunity. He should have been asked to sign a statutory declaration. In this case, there is no statutory declaration from Brent Miller asserting the truthfulness of the statements of the 7th and 24th of July. Under cross-examination, Miller said at the DPP’s office, Mr Busby had asked him if the statements were true.

Bear in mind, there is a prior inconsistent statement in that regard. At the Magistrates’ Court, Miller said Mr Busby never asked him that. But you must consider the evidence at this trial. If Mr Busby asked this question of Brent Miller, the State should have gone further. If he said the statements were true, the State should have formalised it by a statutory declaration to Miller to that effect. By requiring an accomplice witness to swear that a statement is true, might have the effect of driving through to the witness the seriousness and solemnity and how it will look down the line as to the credibility and reliability as to the truthfulness. You will consider the evidence of Brent Miller. Under cross-examination, he agreed that his conscience was worrying him about his statements and the immunity was strangling him. Under re-examination, he was concerned about his personal safety and issues surrounding the safety of his family.

You must take into account his explanation in re-examination. The third issue. Brent Miller said he did not know the reason why the State discontinued the charge of murdering Jillia Bowen. The charge had been discontinued only because Salim Rasheed who had previously positively identified Miller at an identification parade, withdrew the identification, not because Miller decided to give evidence against the accused for conspiracy to murder. Miller is saying he didn’t know the reason why the Jillia Bowen murder charge was discontinued. Not knowing why the murder charge and other charges were dropped, he did not know if he could be re-charged.

Under cross-examination, he said he was worried, if the immunity were taken back, he could be charged with conspiracy to murder with the accused, as well as the murder of Jillia Bowen. When Mr Busby told him he could be charged with the accused if he didn’t give evidence against him, he became concerned. When asked under cross-examination, he said yes. You will have to determine whether the way Miller said he was thinking, could have made him believe he was chained down to the two statements. Whether Miller should have gotten independent legal advice and not from someone from the State. The immunity is one of the seven factors you must take into account in determining the credibility and reliability of Brent Miller.

(Justice Mohammed then summarised the legal arguments of the prosecution and defence)

Mrs Elder asked you to pay particular attention to Salim’s lifestyle to show that people wanted him dead before he was expelled from the Jamaat. That the accused had no motive to kill Salim. The accused had told Zaki on the radio that he was living in his house and that Zaki said he was living next door to the accused. After the radio programme, Zaki lived there for another two weeks. In light of such evidence, it would not be plausible, according to Mrs Elder, for the accused to say in Buffy’s bedroom that he would find out where Salim and Zaki were sleeping. She said this was quite implausible and that both Brent Miller and Brent Danglade were not speaking the truth. The accused said these men Salim and Zaki were like his children and it would be implausible for the accused to give instructions to kill persons he considered like his children.

With respect to what  Brent Danglade had said, killing Salim and Zaki would be inconsistent with disciplining them. The evidence of Brent Danglade was that in Buffy’s bedroom, he was not paying much attention, but he reports more of what was said in the bedroom than what Brent Miller said. Yet Danglade can’t say much of what Brent Miller said in the 20 to 30 minutes. Mrs Elder asked you to consider the motive was not a plausible one because Salim had only returned from the United States in December 2002 and this shooting was in June 2003.  It is unsustainable to say that the accused wanted a cut in Salim’s drug dealings. It would be implausible for the accused to give instructions to kill in front of Brent Danglade who was not requested to go to Citrine Drive, as he was just a visitor. Brent Miller says he was third in line, but he had no Guardian of Islam training, no oath of allegiance, he did not know the opening prayer, he can’t read, and he was not part of the 1990 attempted coup.

She asked you to consider Danglade’s evidence that he stayed in Buffy’s bedroom, but what transpired did not take too long. She asked you to consider if the accused were planning to kill Salim and Zaki, he would be broadcasting it in an indirect way on the Gladiator programme. She said the TSTT evidence shook the foundation of the State’s case. She asked you to consider if the accused has given Brent Miller instructions in Buffy’s bedroom and that Miller was third in line, Miller should have reported back to the accused about the shooting. Would it be plausible to say that the accused would work it out with Salim when he had expelled Salim from the Jamaat and he had chastised him on the radio programme? If Brent Miller decided to give evidence before the immunity, why did he ask Mr Busby what could happen if he didn’t give evidence? Why did he appear so concerned at losing his immunity?

Let us look at Mr Cassel’s argument.

He asked you to take account outside of the evidence of the two Brents, including the motive for killing Salim and Zaki, the anger of the accused on the radio programme, the coincidence of the shooting taking place one week later, the coincidence of Salim and Kazim being shot on the same day they were told they would be expelled from the Jamaat. He does not want you to look only at the case of Brent Miller and Brent Danglade, look at the background. Mr Cassel says if Brent Miller and Sgt Dick put heads together to create lies against the accused, then Sgt Dick would have been present when Brent Miller was giving his statements so he would have stuck to the script. He says there was no police nor prosecutorial conspiracy to implicate the accused. At the time Brent Danglade gave the statement he did not have an immunity, he wasn’t charged with the murder of Jillia Bowen. After he gave evidence, he was charged with the Jordan murder, he did not have any special favours from the police. He asked whether Brent Miller would admit his involvement in the alleged conspiracy of murder if he were innocent of it.

If Brent Miller’s story was entirely made up, why did he bring in Zaki. He could have made him culpable to be charged with conspiracy to murder when Zaki was not shot. Brent Miller did not fight the murder case on the basis that Salim had wrongly identified him. Miller said he was not in the car, but he was one of the men planning to kill not only Salim, but Zaki as well. Why were Buffy and Brent Miller acting on their own to shoot a man against whom they had no bad faith and who was a friend of Miller? They were acting as hit men, acting under orders of someone in authority over them. The accused had a motive for shooting Salim. Mr Cassel referred to the accused’s evidence that he saw Miller coming to the mosque once or twice and he assumed Miller was a Muslim.

In his interview with Cpl Forde and Cpl Veronique on the 21st of August, the accused said Brent came and joined the mosque later and became a Muslim. It was not suggested that the accused did not speak those words at the police interview, or that Veronique had gotten it wrong. Mr Cassel referred to the membership of the Jamaat, marching discipline, striking, the taking of the oath of allegiance, the accused talking about people coming into the Jamaat for protection. Danglade’s evidence of the kidnapping of the Chinese man and the Jamaat men involved in the kidnapping. Mr Cassel suggested that the Jamaat was more than meets the eye and the Jamaat may not purely be a religious organisation.

He suggested that Brent Miller was a leading member of the Jamaat by his authority over the kidnapping of the Chinese man. Veronique’s notes referred to Miller’s soldiers with the list such as Zaki, Dwight, Crock, Skins, and Damian. Miller might not be one of the religious members of the Jamaat, but he was clearly a member with his own soldiers. You have to consider whether Brent Miller was a leading member of the Jamaat, because his evidence is premised on such evidence. The State says the evidence of Miller’s seniority in the Jamaat does not only come from Miller saying so, but from three pieces of evidence identified and submitted for your consideration. It strongly supports an inference that Miller was speaking the truth when Miller said he was senior in tank in 2003.

The alibi witness - Coleen Marchand

Mr Cassel asked you to look at the curious double entry in her book for the 4th of June. He asked you to look at the column under the names of the visitors for the 4th of June and compare the ink with other entries on the page. If the accused went to Petrotrin on the 4th of June, why didn’t he not go to the Pass Office to get a pass? This does not make sense. Mr Cassel says Petrotrin is a sensitive area dealing in combustibles, that security was so lax that someone could get in without a pass for six days. He says that Brent Danglade, being an uneducated man, could not have come up with an elaborate story as he did. Mr Cassel asked you to look at the accused’s visit to the prison and his willingness to pay Brent Miller’s legal fees.

If the accused is correct, saying he hardly knew Brent Miller, why allow such a criminal involved in gang-related murderous warfare in his home? Why visit him in prison and offer to pay legal expenses for a man who was charged with shooting Salim? Why would the accused agree to help pay for Miller’s lawyer when Miller is charged with shooting someone like Salim whom the accused say is like one of his children. Mr Cassel suggested that this only made rational sense that Miller was in trouble with the law in carrying out the orders of the accused, that the accused was now looking after his underling.

The State says this is the key to the whole case, it supports the basic thrust of the evidence of Brent Miller and Brent Danglade and it points to the guilt of the accused. You will have to look at the evidence carefully, look at the circumstantial evidence and draw inferences. The State says if you unravel this case, it will be the key to the compass in resolving this matter. It is now time for you Mr Foreman and members of the jury to retire and consider your verdict.