NOTHING could be more damaging to public trust and confidence than if it was known that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was prepared to put someone on trial for murder when the only witness had admitted to lying.
So said Chief Justice Ivor Archie in an appeal of a novel judicial review lawsuit.
The Chief Justice’s observations were made in an appeal by the DPP against a judge’s order to stay the murder indictment against three men in 2019.
After spending almost a decade on remand, Chris Durham, Ian Sandy, and Deon Calliste were freed when Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams ruled that DPP Roger Gaspard, SC's decision to continue the criminal prosecution of the men was not sensible, since the State’s main witness had admitted to fabricating crucial evidence.
Durham, Sandy, and Calliste were charged with murdering Mubarak Calder, 15, Mentie Murai, 19, and Kevon St Louis during a shooting at a bottle factory at Factory Road in Diego Martin on April 21, 2009.
As pre-trial preparations were being done before the trial judge, Justice Devan Rampersad, in the Port-of-Spain High Court, the State’s main witness, O’Neil Benjamin, allegedly told prosecutors he had fabricated his testimony, which was the only direct evidence linking the three to the crime.
Benjamin reportedly claimed he was willing to continue to lie at the trial as there was a drop in crime within his community after the men were charged.
After being informed of this, the men’s attorneys were able to get notes of the conversation between the witness and the prosecutors after Rampersad ordered its disclosure. The men then filed the judicial review claim questioning the DPP’s decision to continue the case.
Quinlan-Williams ruled in their favour and Rampersad eventually freed them, but her ruling was appealed by the DPP.
In a majority ruling on Monday, Archie and Justice of Appeal Peter Rajkumar dismissed the DPP’s appeal and affirmed the judge’s orders. They declared that the failure of the DPP to immediately discontinue the prosecution of the men on the charge of murder was unreasonable, unfair, and an abuse of process.
They also quashed the DPP's decision not to discontinue the case and ordered that the indictments for the three be quashed.
Justice of Appeal Nolan Bereaux did not agree with the majority decision.
Archie chose to clarify his position, agreeing with Bereaux that the question of an accused receiving a fair trial was one for the trial court. However, he said in this case, there was a sole witness, who perjured himself.
“He has said that he will continue to do so at the trial. Even if he retracts his ‘admission’ there is no conceivable direction from a trial judge that can mitigate the risk of an unjust verdict.”
Archie said the difficulty with the DPP’s position here was when he acknowledged he could not decide whether the witness had lied at the preliminary inquiry or was lying to him now.
“In those circumstances, the DPP thought that the matter should be put to the test in court and determined by the finders
