JUDGE SETS PRECEDENT

Justice Herbert Volney, in throwing out the evidence of an accomplice witness who had been granted immunity from prosecution, leading to the freeing of three men charged with murder, has established a precedent which will, undoubtedly, see a rethink of the procedure with respect to the conferring of immunity. Justice Volney’s ruling was based on his considered view that the person who had been given immunity in the murder trial just ended was a principal offender, while the three accused were secondary parties to the commission of the crime. He saw the granting of immunity to a principal offender to link secondary parties to the commission of the crime as repugnant to public policy considerations inherent in the administration of criminal justice.

“To permit of this course would, in my judgment, compromise the administration of criminal justice and allow a witness not sanitised, of a powerful and overwhelming inducement to ingratiate himself at the inevitable expense of other less involved confederates in the execution of a joint enterprise”, Justice Volney declared. His ruling may result in some of the prisoners now on Death Row, whose convictions were secured on the evidence of others who were involved in a chain of events which had led to murder, either moving to have their cases reopened or seeking a Presidential pardon. Justice Volney, however, stated emphatically that his ruling did not cover all cases involving immunity. He amplified this by pointing out that a trial Judge “sitting with a Jury in a criminal case” was clothed with an inherent jurisdiction to safeguard the fair trial by exercising a discretion to disallow even evidence that otherwise qualifies for admission.

Was the trial Judge expressing a concern at the clear lack of corroborative evidence, by his use of the phrasing “....exercising a discretion to disallow even evidence that otherwise qualifies for admission”, although his thrust had been that the accomplice witness was the principal, and those who had been charged “considerably less secondary parties”?  In all too many cases where persons had been granted immunity, the lack of corroborative evidence had been evident. But there is another disturbing factor in the equation. Several suspected murderers in other and unconnected cases are walking free today because crucial witnesses for the State had been afraid to testify, either because of threats to themselves or threats to others. In turn, in other cases witnesses have been killed including some who had been granted immunity.

Meanwhile, Justice Volney, commenting on the announced resignation from the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] of the prosecutor in the case, Althea Alexis, noted with concern that the continuing resignation of prosecutors from the DPP’s department meant that “we in Trinidad and Tobago are in trouble”. Alexis leaves the severely depleted department to take up an assignment in Africa. While the State’s Legal Department continues to be depleted, many alleged criminals appear to have the most expensive lawyers. For a few dollars more the drain on the State’s Legal Department continues, and relatively inexperienced State Counsel are pitted in the High Court against Senior Counsel, Davids against even more and greatly experienced Goliaths. Is this fair justice to the people of Trinidad and Tobago that while there is so much talk about stopping crime, so many plans and new units being formed every Monday morning so many alleged murderers walk smiling out of our courts? We don’t think so.
endit