It’s a case of trading an underworld hitman for a politician

A JURY will decide tomorrow whether Dhanraj Singh is guilty or not of the murder of Hansraj Sumairsingh, Chairman of the Mayaro/Rio Claro Regional Corporation. The 12-member jury will have to sift through and examine some six days of testimony from 20 witnesses, including the accused. Lead defence attorney Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, told the jury that the State’s evidence of its only witness was uncorroborated and pointed out the many inconsistencies in the evidence. He also alleged unprofessional conduct by certain police officers in the case whom he claimed “wrote the script” for Elliot Hypolite, an accomplice, who turned State witness. He warned, however, that “no perfect script has been written” in this case.

Sir Timothy Cassel QC, who leads the prosecution’s team, offered the jury possible theories where inconsistencies were found. But Hudson-Phillips  warned the jury to desist from any temptation to accept insinuations made to them to prejudice their minds and rely only on pertinent evidence. He emphasised that they must judge this case on the facts as they came out in court, and not on gossip they might have heard in the market place. He also alerted them to the fact that no motive was advanced by the State as to why Dhanraj wanted Sumairsingh killed. He said it was not the normal case since the only evidence came from an accomplice who was once charged with the said murder, but was later granted a nolle prosequi (no prosecution) and a conditional immunity to testify against Dhanraj.  He said it was a case of the State trading one person for another —  an underworld hitman for a politician. Dhanraj is charged with murdering Sumairsingh by hiring two Muslimeen hitmen — Elliot “Abdullah” Hypolite and Steven “Chen” Cummings, to do the job. Hypolite was first charged with the murder but the State granted him immunity while the preliminary inquiry in the Magistrates’ Court was going on.

He suggested that the proper procedure would have been to let Hypolite plead guilty to the charge and sentenced, as was done in another case. Then, Hypolite would not be induced by the immunity, or fear of its conditions, to testify against Dhanraj. In the present circumstances, Hudson-Phillips maintained, such a person coming to give evidence and attempting to implicate Dhanraj was a very sad affair and cannot be right. He explained to the jury how easy it was to set-up someone and warned that their common sense must be alerted. He called on them to be inherently, instinctively suspicious, and not permit this sort of prosecution to continue. He said that the evidence of Mayaro beach house where Sumairsingh was killed must have raised serious concerns. For example, who closed the doors? He continued that there was no evidence that the deceased was shot by Chen. Hypolite did not see Sumairsingh get shot, and there was no evidence that someone called out, “Oh God, I get shot.” DMO Amin did not give evidence of the time of death. Pathologist Hughvon des Vignes said death occurred some 16-18 hours before the body was refrigerated within six hours of discovery. No evidence was heard as to when the body was refrigerated. Death, then was between 9 pm on  December 30,  and 3 am on December 31, 1999.

The owner of a nearby parlour said he saw Sumairsingh at 8 pm, so he could have died between 9 pm and 3 am.  The State has not excluded the possibility of others going there between 9 pm and 3 am. “This event could not have happened in the way in which Hypolite would have you believe. Who closed the doors?” Hudson-Phillips asked again. He argued that the State’s case has no motive, “wrong on the first meeting in Tunapuna, jokey on the meeting at the Rum Bond, suspect on Hypolite’s  first meeting at the home of Dhanraj, no corroboration.” Boasting about  Dhanraj electing to give evidence in the witness stand and be cross-examined, Hudson-Phillips said: “The guilty flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as a lion.”  Hudson-Phillips reminded the jurors that they were judges of the facts and that Dhanraj had nothing to prove, but the State must satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt that Dhanraj is guilty — and that the State has not so done, he echoed.