Dhanraj Singh murder trial aborted

THE Dhanraj Singh murder trial came to an abrupt and premature end yesterday when presiding judge, Justice Melville Baird, ordered the trial to be aborted, and for Singh to face a retrial before a new judge and jury at the next sitting of the Assizes. The trial was aborted after Justice Baird upheld a submission made by Singh’s lead defence attorney, Karl Hudson-Phillips QC.

The main reason to abort the case resulted from a ruling on an issue the judge delivered yesterday, when hearing resumed in the San Fernando First Assize Court. The judge’s ruling appeared to have impacted on decisions handed down last week as well as evidence already given by certain witnesses called by the State. The issue of pre-trial publicity was also cited as a ground for a new trial. While insisting he had no intention of muzzling the press, Justice Baird asked the media not to report the reasons for the aborted trial because of  potential prejudice at the re-trial. Another judge and jury now have to try Singh for the murder of Hansraj Sumairsingh, chairman of the Rio Claro/Mayaro Regional Corporation. Sumairsingh was shot dead inside his beach house in Mayaro between December 30, 1999 and January 1, 2000.

After three appearances in the San Fernando High Court between September last year and January, the former Local Government Minister’s trial was fixed for February 17. It began with several hiccups, first with selection of a jury and maintaining stability of the panel of 12 members. Justice Baird was forced to dismiss two jurors after they were sworn in and the trial started. One knew the murder victim while the other lived close to Singh’s wife at Hardbar-gain, Williamsville. But just a week into the trial, the judge again was forced to replace a juror with an alternate, leaving only one remaining, of the three alternates chosen. The last juror who was replaced told the court that his wife knew the Sumairsinghs. A decision was also made to have the jury  sequestered at the Trinidad Hilton.

The case got underway on February 17, but for two weeks the jury remained sequestered due to prolonged and intensive legal submissions. Newly appointed International Criminal Court (ICC) Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, led a battery of attorneys defending Singh, who appeared in court on each day of the trial, dressed immaculately in two-piece dark coloured suits.  Justice Baird delivered four written rulings on legal submissions in relation to the case and held three enquiries in matters regarding the jury. Last week Monday, British QC Sir Timothy Cassel, who led the prosecution, opened the case with an eight-page speech to the jury. The State called 20 witnesses and on Wednesday star witness, Elliot Hypolite also known as “Abdullah”, took to the witness-box. Hypolite, who had been charged for Sumairsingh’s murder, received immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony against Singh. But prior to Hypolite’s being called to the witness box, both Hudson-Phillips and Cassel argued over the admissability of a certain piece of evidence - a letter. The judge reserved his ruling until yesterday morning.

Hypolite, who is being kept under police  guard, testified and was cross-examined for most of the day on Wednesday. Yesterday’s hearing was planned for Justice Baird to deliver his ruling, to be followed by Hypolite taking the witness box for further cross-examination. That did not happen as Justice Baird’s written decision resulted in Hudson-Phillips asking the judge for a ten-minute adjournment in order to hold discussions with Cassel. During those discussions, junior attorneys to Hudson-Phillips took written instructions from Singh sitting in the dock.

At the 10.05 am resumption of the hearing, Hudson-Phillips addressed the court with the jury still out of court and hearing. He made reference to instructions from his client and pre-trial publicity of the ‘letter’ in a weekly newspaper, which he added, defeated the effect of the judge’s ruling. “This is a serious matter, of serious consequences for the accused. And justice must not only be done but seen to be done,” Hudson-Phillips said. He then requested that in the circumstances of the Judge’s ruling, the trial be aborted and the accused tried de novo. Cassel told Justice Baird that he had no alternative but to agree with defence counsel. He did so, he said, after a telephone discussion with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Henderson. Cassel then asked the judge not to fix the next hearing of the case in the near future, since he was expected to be engaged in a trial in the United Kingdom.

After adjourning briefly, Justice Baird said: “The application is granted. The trial is aborted and the accused is remanded in custody to be tried before another judge and jury.” Singh looked dejected and bowed his head in the dock as his wife Leela and his mother, Shiela Roopnarine, gazed intensely ahead in the packed courtroom gallery. Recalling the jury, Justice Baird, addressing the foreman, announced that having regard to a certain request, “it was necessary to stop the trial”. The judge thanked the jury for undergoing the period of sequestration, saying that he was not unaware of the difficulties they underwent and concerns they had. Justice Baird, on the request of Hudson-Phillips, fixed the case for next month’s Cause List where a judge will determine a date for the new trial.

As the judge rose and left the bench, members of the public gallery pushed themselves forward towards the dock as Singh was being led away by policemen. It took almost an hour for the courtroom to be cleared by marshals. The witness, Hypolite, who was escorted under heavily armed policemen to the nearby police station, was quickly whisked away in an unmarked vehicle. Singh’s mother, Roopnarine who tried to seek an explanation from attorneys about the outcome, commented: “Well, I glad it happened that way. I know he is innocent. They could stay as long as they want, I am staying with him right through.” Singh’s father, Roopnarine (Singh), said: “Well, as you see what happen. I going down with him right through. It costing me money, but I sticking with him.”