Volney the bobolee

JUSTICE Herbert Volney has finally broken his silence, two weeks after the controversial and abrupt end to the Dr Chandra Naraynsingh murder trial in San Fernando. Sitting in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, and prompted by remarks from defence attorney Ravi Rajcoomar, Volney walked out of his batting crease to describe himself as “a popular bobolee, but with skin as thick as an alligator.” Volney, the most controversial judge on the Bench, seized the opportunity to also launch a scathing attack on the Magistracy and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for the extreme delay in bringing a 30-year-old man to trial who was charged with killing his friend and co-worker for “horning” him.

He said the Supreme Court was blameless in the matter. Volney said the preliminary inquiry in the Arima Magistrates’ Court should have taken two to three hearings, but instead it took between 50 and 60 hearings over a period lasting more than two years. On top of that, Volney said the DPP’s office knew there was no intention by the accused to kill, yet still, the DPP filed an indictment for murder instead of the lesser count of manslaughter.
Yesterday, the State accepted a guilty plea of manslaughter from Michael Bullen Jr, who was sentenced to four years in jail. Bullen was before Volney in the Port-of-Spain First Criminal Court charged with the murder of 19-year-old Odelle Bellesmythe at Carapo between July 31 and August 3, 2000. State attorneys Cheron Raphael and Tricia Hudlin prosecuted, while Rajcoomar represented Bullen. In his plea  for leniency, Rajcoomar said Bullen married his childhood sweetheart Ellen, who was older and more experienced. He said Bellesmythe, 19, was Bullen’s friend.

Volney intervened, “She had a love for younger men?” Rajcoomar said at the time of the killing, the accused and his wife had been married for three years. At the time of the killing, Ellen was six months pregnant, but she later fled to Tobago leaving their children behind. He said the children are being cared for by Bullen’s parents, who were in court. Rajcoomar said while Bullen was in prison, his wife visited him, sent him cards and letters, professing her love, and then filed for divorce saying her husband was bad. Counsel continued, “We, the Judiciary, set the standard by your judgments and opinions.” Volney asked, “Let me hear that again?”

Rajcoomar repeated his statement. He then added, “We must also seek justice, not only for the victim, but for the accused as well. A judge is lambasted for following the law. I was in a recent matter where the correct principles were adopted.” He was referring to the murder trial in San Fernando before Volney in which Seeromani Maraj-Naraynsingh and Elton Ramasir were charged with the murder of Dr Chandra Naraynsingh. They were freed on January 26 after the jury, on the invitation of the trial judge, said they did not wish to hear any more evidence. Volney replied, “Is okay, I am the popular bobolee, but my skin is thick like an alligator.” Rajcoomar responded, “The press should get the facts; they were wrong in the last case; I have the transcripts.” The defence counsel continued his plea, saying that Bullen’s life had been on hold for six years through no fault of his. He went as far as asking for a non-custodial sentence for his client.

In passing sentence, Volney said this was a sad case. “The taking of life in circumstances which you visited upon the deceased person, no matter how enraged you might have been, is a telling factor against the mitigation put forward by your attorney. For that reason, I can’t accede that you be given a non-custodial sentence.” He continued, “It is regrettable that the judicial proceedings dragged on in the Magistrates’ Court from August 2000 to March 2003. It follows in my assessment of what transpired that you lost valuable time in the Remand Yard because of the inadequacies of the committal system. A matter like this should have taken no more than two or three hearings to be completed. It is not fair that you pay the price for the inadequacies of the committal system.”

Volney said it took the Magistracy eight months to type 22 pages of evidence, “while you (Bullen) remained languishing in prison having been committed of murder. That is not all. When the matter arrived in the office of the DPP, for whatever reason, the DPP signed the indictment on January 18, 2005, in other words, some 14 months after.” Volney was critical of the DPP for indicting Bullen for murder, but coming to court yesterday and conceding that there was no intention to commit murder. “In other words, it seems to me you were wronged. Had you received that concession before, you would have been able to obtain bail. The fault has not been the Supreme Court. It is the system which has let you down. I don’t think you should pay the ultimate price longer than you should,” Volney added.