Witnesses in hiding

THE SPECTACLE of a man charged with murder being freed by a judge because two State witnesses failed to appear in court is a most disturbing one. In our view, the entire criminal justice system of our country is threatened by such an outcome. Our courts must have some means of dealing with prosecution witnesses who deliberately refuse to turn up at the trial of persons charged with such a serious offence as murder. A message must be sent to such witnesses that they simply cannot evade their responsibility in such a vital matter with impunity. 

On Monday, Aldwyn Reno, who was charged with the murder of Marcel Ash on February 3, 2001, at Nelson Street, Port-of-Spain, was ordered free by Justice Herbert Volney not on the basis of a not-guilty verdict by a jury but because two State witnesses failed to turn up in court. In the case of Sharon De Peza, girlfriend of the deceased, a warrant was issued last week for her arrest but, according to State prosecutor Althea Alexis, she could not be found. Three subpoenas were issued for the other witness, Delano Williams, but he too failed to attend court. It can hardly be satisfactory, in our view, for the State prosecutor or the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to accept, on the basis of a one-week-old warrant, that De Peza could not be found. Also it is not enough simply to surrender the search for Williams because he did not respond to three subpoenas. Trinidad and Tobago is not such a huge country that ordinary persons who are not fugitives cannot be located.

Justice Volney himself showed enough concern by asking defence and State attorneys whether anything could be done about the defaulting witnesses. We believe, however, that he should not have accepted their reply that nothing could be done in the circumstances. For one thing, he could have postponed the trial again, issued a warrant for Williams and instructed State counsel to have a more diligent and expansive search conducted for both witnesses. He could also have inquired from the Police officer laying the charge about the efforts that had been made to find the two witnesses. But, most of all, we totally disagree with the view that nothing could be done in the circumstances about their serious dereliction of duty to the Court and our system of justice.

De Peza happens to be an eye-witness to this alleged murder. According to the prosecution, she was on the scene when the accused allegedly struck the victim on the head with a piece of wood. If such key witnesses are now able to shirk their duty to testify in such cases by simply staying away from court or hiding from the authorities, what will such delinquency mean to our criminal justice system? The grave implications of this matter should be quite clear. Both De Peza and Williams gave evidence in the preliminary inquiry and had been properly summoned to testify at the trial. In addition, a warrant for one and subpoenas for the other were issued. Their refusal to comply with these commands constitute a criminal contempt of court for which they should be made to answer. The officers of our courts, whether judges, State or defence attorneys, and Police officers laying murder charges should appreciate the seriousness of this matter, particularly at a time when public concern over the level of crime and violence in our country is quite high. There can be no retrial, of course, but we do not expect the DPP to drop the matter of these delinquent witnesses, just so.