Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence will form part of the prosecution’s case against the two men indicted for the murder of six-year-old Sean Luke in 2006.
Opposition to the admission of the DNA evidence came from one of the men charged with the boy’s murder in the form of a motion to stay the indictment against him because of the delay by the State to disclose the evidence, but this was shot down by the judge presiding over the trial.
On Wednesday, Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds ruled she did not agree that Akeel Mitchell would not receive a fair trial as his attorneys had argued on Monday. Mitchell’s co-accused, Richard Chatoo did not object to the evidence being led.
She pointed to the timeline given by senior prosecutor Sabrina Dougdeen-Jaglal in resisting the motion on Monday, saying pertinent disclosure was made to the defence before the trial had started on April 19.
Ramsumair-Hinds said when the trial started, there was nothing on evidence against Mitchell and although a notice of fresh evidence was filed by the State on April 21, to get permission to lead the DNA evidence, Mitchell’s defence team in questioning the first rash of witnesses, did not cross-examine in a way that would support their contention that they were unable to properly put their client’s defence to those witnesses.
She said fresh DNA samples were taken from Mitchell and Chatoo at the prison but Mitchell’s defence of an alibi, did not change.
She said the criminal proceedings rules applied to both sides – the defence had complained that the DNA evidence came more than a decade after samples were taken from Luke- and pointed out that Mitchell’s notice of alibi was only given 13 years after he was put on notice in 2008 by the magistrate who conducted the preliminary inquiry into the child’s murder.
“The DPP was entitled to those particulars in ten days to disprove once alibi was raised. Thirteen years elapsed on an obligation that required ten days,” the judge said.
She also said in a perfect world, and the utopia many hope to see in the criminal justice system, the exhibits would have been tested for DNA before the preliminary inquiry ended.
However, she said, the practice currently plaguing the system of lengthy delays in analysing exhibits must change “if the criminal justice landscape has to improve.”
“If I give the impression I am happy with the state of affairs where exhibits taken in 2006 are only tested in 2021. I am not. That is atrocious,” she said, but acknowledged that the Director of Public Prosecutions did not control his own purse and the outfitting of forensic capabilities of the State was a function of the Executive.
She said it was common place for the defence to find holes in the prosecution’s case, as is its right, but said often the absence of evidence affected both sides since DNA evidence can either incriminate, exonerate an accused or remain as neutral evidence in a case.
This was Mitchell’s second motion to stay the indictment. He also filed a motion to quash the indictment and those two we
