Brother freed

A Scarborough, Tobago labourer was freed Friday on a charge of murdering his elder brother following a no-case submission by his attorney at the end of the preliminary inquiry. John Gray, 47, represented by attorney Neville Hilton-Clarke was acquitted by Senior Magistrate Mark Wellington in the Scarborough First Court after he upheld Hilton-Clarke’s submission that his client had no case of murder to answer.

When the decision was handed down, Gray burst into tears, circled the courtroom, then went out the door and back inside, before he actually left surrounded by relatives and friends who were ecstatic in their solidarity with the freed man. Gray had been before the court charged by Detective Sgt Garfield Moore of the Scarborough CID, with murdering 50-year-old Rawle Gray, aka “Small Boy”, at their Logwood Park, Glen Road, Scarborough home on the night of May 29, 2002.

The State’s case was presented by Prosecutor, Insp Cyril Broomes. It was alleged that the deceased came home around 9 pm and started cursing the accused. The deceased, it was alleged, was in the habit of behaving violently and beating on his younger brother, and there was ongoing conflict in the home that they shared. On the night in question, the deceased allegedly cursed the accused over dirty clothes he (the accused) had in his room and ordered him to remove them. As he was doing so, it was alleged that the deceased who was armed with two cutlasses, started planassing him.

The deceased allegedly cornered John when he attempted to escape, and he took up a piece of wood and struck the deceased, who fell to the floor and was later pronounced dead. In his no-case submission, defence attorney Hilton-Clarke submitted that an essential element or ingredient of the charge of murder, that of malice aforethought, premeditation was not established by the prosecution.

Defence attorney said there was absolutely no evidence of this. He submitted there was no intention on the part of his client to wound or do grievous bodily harm, far less to murder, when he struck the deceased with the piece of wood. It was purely an act of self-defence under provocation, Hilton-Clarke submitted. In summing up his decision, the Magistrate observed that from the evidence it was quite clear that the deceased was the aggressor at all times. He noted that on the day in question, the deceased planassed the accused, who, in trying to escape the brutality, picked up the piece of wood and hit the attacker and escaped.

Additionally, the Magistrate said there was evidence that there were several reports made by the accused to the Police about the violent behaviour of the deceased on several occasions. Moreover, the accused had brought several private charges against the deceased for assault, bodily harm, constant bullying, etc. He said there was evidence of severe provocation of the accused by the deceased on very many occasions. Further, the Magistrate ruled that on the evidence as a whole, there was no real prima facie case of murder made out against the accused by the prosecution. He said there was serious doubt with respect to a charge of manslaughter when one considers all the facts; because the deceased was clearly the aggressor and the accused was merely trying to defend himself. Magistrate Wellington said he had no choice but to discharge the accused.