Judge rejects submission, trial set for July 5

Justice Paula Mae Weekes, in a written judgement yesterday,  rejected a submission  that the evidence of ten-year-old Meena Ramnarine ought not to be admitted against Ronald Tiwarie, who is accused of murdering her mother, Polly Ramnarine. The judge also rejected a further submission by defence attorney Odai Ramischand,  that Section 16 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 28 of 1996 was unconstitutional because it infringed Tiwarie’s right. He claimed that the required section was not passed by the required three-fifths vote in both Houses.

Section 16 now makes it possible to obtain a conviction of murder by the admission of the unsworn and uncorroborated evidence of a child.
Justice Weekes said it was unclear how the changing of the law to admit such unsworn evidence infringed Tiwarie’s rights. “The argument proceeds from either of two incorrect bases, (1) that the accused has a constitutional right to have such evidence excluded or (2) that the giving of such evidence by a child makes the trial unfair.” The judge noted that Section 16 does not affect, or change any substantive right of Tiwarie. “It is concerned with the manner in which guilt is to be proven. It effects a change in the applicable criminal law which has no bearing on the trial process. Neither the presumption of innocence, nor the fairness of the trial is affected.

Justice Weekes further noted that there are inherent safeguards within the criminal trial which preserve both, including the accused’s right to cross-examine the child. The trial judge will address the reliability of the child’s evidence and decide whether it should be left with the jury. If the judge leaves that evidence to the jury, he or she will direct on the inherent dangers of relying on such evidence. The defendant will be able to lead evidence in his defence. “Should the judge be wrong in putting the evidence to the jury, the accused can appeal. This is what constitutes “due process” for the purpose of this case,” added the judge. As a result of the judge’s ruling the matter was put for trial on July 5, 2004.