ALMOST a year after they were convicted of the murder of six-year-old Sean Luke, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for two men because of the number of serious errors made by the judge who delivered their guilty verdicts.

The decision of Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Mark Mohammed and Maria Wilson came after prosecutors said they could not defend the appeal filed by Akeel Mitchell and Richard Chatoo.

Mitchell and Chatoo were convicted by Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds on July 23, 2021. In her verdict, Ramsumair-Hinds said Luke’s killing was a planned and frenzied assault.

At their virtual trial, both men denied killing Luke.

[caption id="attachment_913753" align="alignnone" width="386"] Sean Luke[/caption]

On Tuesday, deputy Director of Public Prosecutions George Busby and assistant DPP Sabrina Dougdeen-Jaglal said they were unable to deal with the challenges posed by four grounds of appeal raised by the men’s lead attorney Jagdeo Singh.

Both prosecutors said the State had to concede in the appeal and explained why, in detail, as they spent almost two hours taking the judges through the evidence and the judge’s verdict.

Bereaux, who delivered the decision, said because of the public interest in an expeditious retrial, they were ordering that the case be assigned to a judge’s docket no later than July 25.

In their ruling, the judges said they agreed this was a difficult and complex case, and were also in agreement that the judge made “material errors which have led to a serious miscarriage of justice.”

They also said they could not apply the proviso which allows the court to dismiss an appeal although a ground of challenge finds favour with the court, because of the “seriousness of these errors and the number of them.”

They have promised to give full reasons which will include guidance on issues which arose at the trial.

The appeal was the first involving a judge-only trial.

Two main grounds identified by the prosecutors dealt with complaints of the judge’s application of the legal principles on the role each played in the killing of Luke as a primary and secondary party to the crime.

The grounds related to the judge’s failure to adequately direct herself on the DNA evidence presented in the case, how she viewed the testimony of the main prosecution witness, and that she failed to give sufficient details on the principles of law and finding of facts she relied on for her verdict.

Prosecutors and the attorneys for the men said the judge misstated the prosecution’s case and invited speculation on the evidence. She was also accused of engaging in reverse directions to herself on other pertinent aspects of evidence.

In his submissions, Singh said judges should not be allowed to come to findings on speculation as it will undermine the public’s confidence in the judge-only trial system.

He said there was good reason for the public’s confidence in jury trials. In this case, he said the judge’s verdict was indefensible and to do anything but allow the appeal would promote judges giv