DPP: Vital eyewitnesses reluctant to give evidence

An article appeared recently in one of the daily newspapers under the headline "No Murder convictions for 2005 — Accused persons walking free". The article conveyed the impression that the level of inexperience "is reflected in the rate of convictions..." Some of the information contained in this article is inaccurate and I consider it my duty to correct these inaccuracies.

During the period January to June 2005, 13 murder trials were completed in Port-of-Spain. Without going into specific cases, the results were as follows:

• One murder conviction;

• Five manslaughter convictions; and

• Seven acquittals

One person was convicted of murder. However, he was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence and therefore was sentenced to a term of years.

Regarding the manslaughter convictions, two were verdicts of the jury after they heard the evidence and deliberated thereon. The other three convictions were as a result of plea discussions between the prosecution and the defence. The law permits such plea agreements, and where an accused pleads guilty to manslaughter, this is only done with the approval of the trial judge. If there is no proper basis to accept such a plea, the trial judge would not permit the accused to plead guilty to manslaughter. In each of these cases, the accused persons were sentenced to prison for a term of years.

The seven acquittals can be classified in the following manner. In two cases the evidence, which formed the initial basis of the charges against the accused, was fully ventilated in the court trial. The acquittals were as a result of the prosecution not negativing self-defence in one trial and not proving the voluntariness of an alleged confession statement in the other trial. In the latter mentioned case, without the alleged confession, there was no other evidence, scientific or otherwise, probative of the guilt of the accused. The trial judge directed the jury to acquit. In both cases the result was after consideration of the evidence.

The remaining five cases involved multiple accused persons and the manner of their acquittal is a cause for serious concern. They reflect a growing trend. In these five cases, criminal proceedings were instituted on the basis of eyewitness accounts contained in their witness statements. In each case the testimony of those witnesses was necessary to ensure a successful prosecution. When the matters came up for trial, these vital witnesses could not be found, and if found were either reluctant to or refused altogether to give evidence at the trial. In some instances the witnesses gave contradictory evidence at both the preliminary enquiry and at the trial. In other instances the witnesses had to be deemed hostile. In one trial, the witnesses that could be found refused to testify altogether. In another, a prosecution witness at the preliminary enquiry gave evidence at the trial for the defence. In all cases, these accused were acquitted.

In the aforementioned acquittals, evidence that formed the basis of the charges was not placed before the jury. Witness intimidation was a factor. In none of these cases can the acquittals fairly be attributed to inexperience.

The intimidation of jurors may be another factor that cannot be excluded. During the material period, in one trial two jurors were discharged. In another trial, after certain complaints were made regarding the jury, the trial was aborted.

As Director, I have recommended changes to the legislation, which in other jurisdictions have assisted in the prosecution of matters which rely on vulnerable witnesses. It is hoped that these recommendations will be included in the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) (Amendment) Bill, 2005.

Regarding witness intimidation, whenever possible, witnesses are encouraged to enter the Witness Protection Programme to eliminate the risk of witness tampering and intimidation. Some of these witnesses decline the invitation to enter the programme.

As ministers of justice, our duty is not to secure a conviction, but to fairly and fearlessly present the evidence before a fact-finding tribunal, whose responsibility it is to decide the question of guilt or innocence. The public is assured that the Director of Public Prosecutions and his officers are committed to maintaining the highest standards of prosecutorial competence, propriety, impartiality, independence and integrity.