Akiel's ghost is crying

HOW DID 11-year-old schoolboy Akiel Chambers die? Three years and three monhs ago, the then DPP Mark Mohammed ordered that a second inquest be held to find the answer to that question, but up to now that inquiry had not been held. This failure is scandalous, in our view, since the fresh evidence on which the DPP acted seems to indicate that Chambers may not have died the victim of an accident as the first inquest concluded. Something must be terribly wrong with the system when an inquiry of such importance cannot be held for such a long time. Justice demanded that the inquest be held shortly after it was ordered by the DPP, the reason being that if the boy's death was not accidental, and foul play was involved, then it was important for the Police to begin investigations right away.

Now it is more than five years since Chambers' body was fished out of the swimming pool of businessman Charles James at Haleland Park, Maraval. The youngster was attending a birthday party for James' daughter Carrie when he disappeared. On April 19, 2000, Coroner Jai Narine ruled that the boy's death resulted from an accidental drowning. However, it was reported that a second post mortem examination, conducted by pathologist Hughvon des Vignes, revealed there were spermatozoa in his rectum and that his body was found in a crouched position in the pool. Since the results of this second post mortem, requested by Chambers' family, did not go before Coroner Narine, DPP Mohammed decided to order a second inquest. And that was three years and three months ago. Since then, nine attempts to get this inquiry going have failed for one reason or another. On Monday, Magistrate Marcia Thompson-Murray, sitting as Coroner, had to adjourn the matter for the tenth time because of, in our view, a totally unacceptable excuse; summonses to attend court had not been served to 16 witnesses. We believe that this delinquency requires an inquiry in itself. This matter was last called on May 10 and then adjourned to last Monday, a period of three months in which absolutely nothing was done. After being repeatedly postponed over a period of more than three years, we now get this ridiculous excuse that witnesses have not been summoned by the Court in spite of a three-month adjournment. Will this inquest ever begin? Will we ever find out how this 11-year-old schoolboy met his death? Will justice at least be seen to be done here?

This kind of slackness makes a mockery of the system and it is time, we feel, for the Chief Justice to undertake a thorough investigation into the way our magistracy deals with the holding of inquests. These inquiries must not be regarded as nuisances; they must be held in every case of unnatural death so that the circumstances may be carefully examined and the cause, whether by accident or by foul play, established. If there is a problem in the magistracy which results in this kind of impotence, then it must be investigated, addressed and remedied. We are equally alarmed to learn that the Chambers inquest is not the only one falling casualty to the system, that in fact there is a backlong of such inquiries waiting to be heard. To what extent the cause of justice is damaged by this chronic delay may not be determined, but the mere possibility that it is should provoke the active concern of the authorities. One solution to this problem, it seems to us, would be the appointment of full-time coroners, even for a temporary period until the back- log of inquests has been removed. The practice of assigning magistrates to act as coroners is clearly not working. The ghost of Akiel may be crying out for change.