Retrial ordered in murder case

In ordering John’s retrial, in spite of the period of time, Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma observed that one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to order a retrial is the seriousness and prevalence of murder offences.

He said, "In the last three years, there has been a shocking and disturbing increase in murders in our society. Already for the year 2005 there has been an unprecedented 336 murders. Citizens have mobilised themselves by engaging in widely canvassed marches in an effort to highlight their frustration with the alarming murder toll. Naturally, such heinous crimes are of great concern to law abiding citizens, so much so, that in light of the seriousness and prevalence of murder in this society, and furthermore the reckless disregard for human life, this court has to send a clarion message of intolerance of such heinous and shocking crimes."

The Appeal Court, comprising the CJ and Justices Stanley John and Paula Mae Weekes, said it has considered all the factors and submissions advance by counsel. However, they are of the opinion that the justice of the case and the public interest require that there be a retrial, especially considering the nature of the offence and its scourge on our society.

Arguing the appeal for John was Gregory Delzin and Brent Ali, while Dana Seetahal represented the State.

The court admitted that, without a doubt, there are certain fears faced by an accused. However, the court noted that, "it is expected and perhaps warranted in light of the offences charged. This however, is not a cogent reason for holding that of itself the time period of the initial trial would render a retrial unfair or inhumane. Additionally, this trial is likely to be shorter since there will be one accused before the court." The last trial amounted to 34 days from June 9 - July 14, 2000.

John was charged with murdering Narvin Nandlal on December 12, 1997. He was convicted and sentenced on July 14, 2000. The Privy Council quashed the conviction on the basis that the trial judge had failed to give the "good character" direction which rendered the conviction unsafe.