COMMENTARY: Sleuth Crime Fighter – Ray John Et Al: On Trial

 

SLEUTH CRIME FIGHTER – RAY JOHN ET AL: ON TRIAL    by  RAWLSTON POMPEY

Few would deny that the ‘Ray John /Shakema Charles’ Criminal Assize Trial on ‘Conspiracy Indictment,’ speaks to nothing, but prosecutorial confusion. The turn of events, and twist of fate, speak to nothing, but a mass of confusion. Media reports suggested that this was due to several prosecutorial and evidential hurdles.

TWIST OF TRIAL AND FORTUNE

Eventually, the jointly-charged trial commenced with ‘Key non-compellable; non-resident; and non-judicially bound-over witnesses for the Prosecution; and non- judicially-summoned.’ These were said to have been beyond the control of the recently appointed, ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shannon Jones-Gittens.’

PROSECTORALL CONTENDED

The accused, along with two female co-accused, were slapped with indictments of; (i) ‘Larceny,’ with the alternative count of; (ii) Receiving,’ appropriately considered by ‘former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Anthony Armstrong.’ That which was ‘Prosecutorally Contended,’ were that if the accused were not; (a) The actual ‘Thieves;’ then (b) They were the ‘Receivers of the duplicate Passport-related documents.’

PERSPECTIVE

The eventual commencement of the jointly-indicted accused ‘Ray John and co-accused Shakema Charles,’ saw a one-week adjournment of the trial’ by newly appointed Judge, ‘His Lordship, Justice Tunde Ademola Bakre.’ The week’s adjournment allows ‘His Lordship’ to consider and make determinations respecting admission into evidence of three non-judicially binding witness statements.

WITNESSES: NOT BEYOND REACH

Incidentally, the non-jurisdictional prosecution witnesses had purportedly made by the apparent; (i) No authenticated-public notarized statements; Not sworn as witnesses for attendance in the instant ‘Criminal Assize ‘Judge Alone Trial’ on Antigua and Barbuda; (ii) Not beyond human reach;’ (iii) Hold no residency-status on Antigua and Barbuda; and (iv) not actively serving members of the ‘Royal St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force (RSVGPF); and (v) Not,’ lawfully and jurisdictionally acting in the execution of duty

PERSPECTIVE

[IWN: May 18, 2018]. This commentary looks at; (a) ‘Developments in the trial; (b) The Criminal Proceedings (Judge Alone Trial) Act’ [No.8 of 2021[. In the instant ‘Trial by Judge Alone,’ officials at the ‘High Court of Justice,’ may have disadvantaged who has been assigned to the ‘Antigua and Barbuda’ judicial jurisdiction.

PROSECUTORIAL VISION

The accused were indicted for allegedly stealing or receiving ‘Passport-related ‘Multi-Layered Infilling Sheets (MLIS). The related documents, property of the ‘Government of Antigua and Barbuda were valued ‘EC$ 1, 600’ for ’16 Sheets.’ These were identified as documents allegedly stolen from the ‘Antigua and Barbuda Passport office’ [October 28, 2014 and April 6, 2018]. A non-resident second female-accused had her indictment ‘Nolle Prosequi’ by the ‘Office of DPP’ [……].

VISION OF CONSPIRACY

When then ‘DPP Anthony Armstrong’ demitted office, having assumed the ‘Directorate’ position, ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)’ Shannon Jones-Gittens,’ seemingly had a ‘Prosecutorial Vision.’ The ‘Acting DPP,’ likened to a ‘Prosecutorial Prophet,’ true or false, appeared to have conceived a ‘Vision of Conspiracy.’

COURT-FICTURED DATES

Such an indictment, meant clear intentions to commit ‘Passport Forgery ad Fraud.’ Consequent upon this new indictment, the accused, having been arraigned, also opted for the ‘Judge Alone Trial,’ as available [CPJAT: No. 8 of 2021]. Given several ‘Court-Fixtured Dates’ for commencement of the joint-trial. All hit snags of unexplained reasons and uneasy delays.

PROSECUTORIAL COMPLEXITIES

Less than midway through the ‘Judge Alone Trial,’ an apparent formidable ‘Battery of Defence Attorneys; (i) ‘Marshall and Marshall; and (ii) Michael Archibald,’ had brought ‘Prosecutorial Complexities’ to the criminal proceedings. The apparent collaborative teams of ‘Defence Attorneys,’ has reportedly advanced legal arguments on the issues of (i) ‘Attendance of Prosecution witnesses; (ii) Admissibility; or (ii) Inadmissibility.’

UNSWORN AND UNBINDING

The three purportedly-made, ‘Unsworn and Unbinding’ ‘Statements,’ obtained in a regional jurisdiction, ‘St. Vincent and the Grenadines,’ had encountered; (a) ‘Tendering; (b) Admission; and Marked’ difficulties. They encountered, and rightly so, total rejection by ‘Defence attorneys; (i) ‘Marshall and Marshall’ for the male accused; and (b) Michael Archibald for the female accused.

HORRIBLE AND INTOLERABLE

The male accused, boasted a projected reputation and an image of being tough and street smart. He was not only firm, resolute and decisive in his approach, but also effective in crime fighting. He was a fearless crime fighting sleuth. He was nationally known for being tough on crime and criminals. Those that criminally set out to make life ‘Horrible and Intolerable’ for the unsuspecting unarmed and defenceless citizens, had respect for his fearlessness and methodologies.

CRIME-FIGHTENING STRATEGY

As much as criminals abhorred, they feared that which he carried along, more than of himself. The citizen’s safety, protection and peace of mind, were dependent upon the almost instinctive ‘Crime-Fighting Strategy.’ Though not necessarily fearful of him, the criminal element had shown appreciable respect for, and cooperated, if only half-way with him. Some despised him.

VICIOUSL RUTHLESS

Though not necessarily, ‘Viciously Ruthless,’ he was well respected by those that he knew would set out to prey upon the defenceless, unarmed, innocent and law-abiding citizens. These were the ones, who with impunity and increasing frequency, brazenly attacked householders, supermarkets and Service Stations.  Though not necessarily out of human respect, he had commanded both their attention, obedience and cooperation.

RAY JOHN: OR RAYCAN

Criminals appeared not to have ever mistakenly or despisedly called him ‘Ray or Raycan.’  The latter, being the character in the social commentary by ‘Sir McLean Emmanuel KCN, ‘King Short’ sang about, as having ‘Smoked-herring in his hand.’ The crime fighter ‘Ray John’ might be seen with anything in his hand, but ‘Smoked Red Herring.’.

PLAYING WITH FIRE

Those that have made a livelihood from robbery, and fun by shooting unarmed victims, knew that they would have been ‘Playing with Fire.’ Those that may not have experienced the uncomfortable sensation of heat, shall have come to the understanding that ‘Fire’ has never generated snow. Research has revealed that many appeared not to have experienced such heat-feeling sensation. Their experiences may have been likened to ‘Limacol, a ‘Breeze in a Bottle,’ or the ‘Summer Breeze.’

PROSECUTORIAL CLUTCHES

For some 6-years, ‘Ray John’ has not been fighting crime. Instead, he has been fighting to get away from the ‘Prosecutorial Clutches’ of ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Shannon Jones-Gittens.’ The ‘Defence Team,’ exhibiting evidence of formidability, appeared to have forced the ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) into a prosecutorial cul-de-sac.

MENTAL AGONY

With a criminal trial dangling over his, as well as the head of co-accused ‘Shakema Charles,’ such could be equated to the experiences of the two Jamaican murder-convicts ‘Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan’ [JCPC: 1993]. In their case, the ‘Mental Agony,’ trauma, torment, the unease experienced, were capable of being described as ‘Cruel and unusual Punishment’ [ANU: CO: 1981: Section 6 (7)].

RULING ON ‘LEGAL FICTION

This could be all over on ‘Tuesday February, 13, 2024.’ This will be dependent upon the ‘Ruling on Submissions’ made by ‘Defence and Prosecuting Attorneys,’ on the admissibility or inadmissibility of statements, ‘Fictionally-but legally recognized in law as ‘Written Statements’ MCPA: Section 42 A: No. 13 of 2004: Section 7 (a)].

ADMISSIBILITY/INADMISSIBILITY

Though an indictment relating to an offence against property and legally-acceptable behavior, a ruling in favor of ‘Admissibility/Inadmissibility’ in evidence, could result in their admittance in evidence without the benefit of an opportunity to ‘Cross Examine’ the purported makers of the Statements, not deponed before a ‘Committing Magistrate.’ Conversely, there will be no need for ‘Cross or Re-examination,’ if not so ruled.

TORMENT AND AGONY

Research has revealed their ‘Torment and Agony’ languishing on ‘Death Row, they were served twice with the ‘Hanging Notice.’ Terrified when weighed to ascertain, what, if any additional weight was necessary to effect upon the accused that which the ‘Jamaica Supreme Court,’ had ordered. ’Both knew that their ‘Cell Life’ was about to end with a noose around their necks’

[1979-1993].

INCOMPARABLE SERIOUSNESS

Incidentally, the accused Ray John and Shakema Charles’ were ‘Remanded on Bail’ until the commencement of their trial [Observer Media: January, 17, 2024]. Though with ‘Incomparable Seriousness,’ to that of Jamaican murder convicts who languished on ‘Death Row’ for some ‘14-gruelling years,’ the jointly-charged accused ‘Ray John and Shakema Charles,’ may have been given cause for grave concern.

PROSECUTORIAL IMPOTENCY

That which the accused have experience was more than inordinate trial delays. Such, from public perceptions, could reasonably have been attributed to several factors. That which appeared to have operated in the mind of general public, have been; (a) Prosecutorial Delinquency;’ or (b) Prosecutorial-selectivity; or (c) Prosecutorial hesitancy; (d) Prosecutorial unpreparedness; or (e) Prosecutorial Impotency.’

DELAYED TRIAL- MALADY

Alleged to have committed certain ‘Conspiratorial Acts,’ the accused were; (a) ‘Hastily arrested; (b) Hastily committed; and (c) Hastily indicted to stand trial at the ‘Criminal Assizes-2019.’ Their joint-trial appeared not to have been a prosecutorial priority. Languishing on bail, for some 5-years, could arguably, be described as a ‘Malady’ that seemed to have plagued the offices of ‘DPP and Criminal Assizes.’

PROSECUTORIAL CREDIBILITY

This has not only reflected negatively on: (i) ‘Crown Prosecutors; but also (ii) The Criminal Justice System; and (iii) The Judiciary.’ Such malady could impact the ‘Prosecutorial Credibility’ of the service the ‘Crown’ renders to the public. Many citizens have found, and continue to find it difficult to mask their abhorrence and disgust or hide their utter contempt for that which these systems were dishing out, particularly upon the indigent members of society.

TRAVESTY TO TRIAL JUDGE

With merely three months into adjudicating at the ‘Criminal Assizes,’ to have ‘foisted’ upon ‘His Lordship, Justice Tunde Ademola Bakre’ the ‘Complex Ray John/Shakema Charles,’ may have been a ‘Travesty’ to the ‘Trial Judge.’ Seemingly, prepared for the challenges that lie ahead, the ‘Trial Judge,’ had made a declaration of intent that the trial will commence with the issuance of a ‘Court-Fixtured Date’ in December-2023.’

JUDICIAL NOTIFICATION

Incidentally, both accused had ‘Judicial Notification’ that their attendance, collectively, was required at the ‘Criminal Assize Court-May 2019.’ That which ‘His Lordship, Justice Tunde Ademola Bakre,’ appeared to have lacked intimate familiarity,’ were celebratory events, practice, customs and culture. He may have been made aware that unlike ‘Continental Africa,’ the month of ‘December’ was for anything, but criminal trials.

CO-OPERATIVE AND ACCOMMODATING

When a ‘December Court-Fixtured-Date’ came upon ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shannon Jones-Gittens,’ disappointingly, reluctantly, yet ‘Co-operatively Accommodating,’ the ‘Trial Judge,’ with a sternness of a voice, intimated a resolve that the trial shall commence on ‘January 17, 2024’ [Observer Media:]. On February 13, 2024, it would be 4-days shy of one month since the trial commenced.

ADJUDICATING GPS

So intense has been the legal arguments, that the ‘Trial Judge’ appeared to have been forced into using the ‘Adjudicating GPS’ in navigating the ‘corridors to the ‘Halls of Justice.’ While such remains the case at ‘Committal Proceedings,’ it is much higher at trial. There are the Prosecution duties of; (i) ‘Establishing a Prima Facie Case to eliminate ‘No Case to Answer Submissions.’

EVIDENTIAL AMBIGUITIES

The Prosecution’s cases are based upon the evidence adduced at trial, be it favorable or unfavorable. It is allowed full judicial ventilation, and well examined by; (a) ‘Defence Attorneys; (b) Carefully by the Jury; and (c) The Trial Judge in clearing up ‘Evidential Ambiguities.’ The most fundamental has always; (a) ‘The Burden of Proof; then (b) Proving the Case ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt.’ This has been so, be it in; (i) ‘Jury; or (ii) Juryless trials,’ as has been the instant case.

PROSECUTORIAL ADVANTAGE

It boggles the mind, that an apparent unprincipled attempt may have been made, in persuading the ‘Trial Judge,’ to act contrary to the provisions contained in the ‘Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone) Act.’ Given such an appearance, it might be considered inexcusable for ‘Crown Prosecutors’ to exploit the apparent unfamiliarity of a ‘Trial Judge’ for the purpose of obtaining a ‘Prosecutorial Advantage,’ by deception.

FIRST TIME ‘JUDGE ALONE’ ADJUDICATOR

The apparent ‘First-Time Trial Adjudicator,’ required a one-week adjournment to consider, and determine; (a) ‘The Admissibility; or (b) Inadmissibility of the ‘Statements, fictionalized as ‘Depositions.’ The ‘Magistrate’s Code of Procedure (Amendment) Act’ interprets ‘Committal Proceedings’ as means ‘Proceedings under the Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act for the committal of a person accused an indictable offence for trial by Jury’ [MCPA: Section 56: MCPAA: Section 29: No 13 of 2004].

ABILITY AND INTELLECT

Though legally learned, and with high regard and respect to ‘His Lordship’s’ adjudicating ‘Ability and Intellect,’ of ‘Justice Tunde Ademola Bakre,’ may have been given a path to ascend the summit of ‘Mt. Kili Manjaro’ without a ‘Global Position System (GPS)’ [Tanzania: Africa]. [Observer Media: February 6, 2024].

FAIR TRIAL ORDER

For the ‘Judicial guidance of ‘Trial Judges, one of the provisions unambiguously states; ‘A Judge presiding at a criminal proceeding, may make ‘ANY’ order that he/she considers appropriate in the circumstances to protect the right of the accused to a ‘Fair Trial’ [Section 50: Evidence (Special Provisions) Act: No.5 of 2009].

EVIDENCE: READING STATEMENTS

Even as the issue of ‘Reading Statements’ into evidence, has arisen, no evidentiary duty was imposed upon the ‘Trial Judge’ to assist ‘Crown Prosecutors’ in making out a ‘Prima Facie Case’ against the accused; (i) ‘Ray John; and (ii) Shakema Charles.’ The applicable ‘Act’ has made special provisions for ‘Non-Deponed Statements,’ to be read into evidence. It qualifies and guides; (i) ‘Crown Prosecutors: (ii) Defence attorneys; and (iii) Trial Judges,’ when and how this shall be allowed.

REFERRALS ASSISTANCE

Thus, it has been the adjudicating responsibility of all ‘Trial Judges’ to ensure that the evidence adduced by the ‘Prosecution,’ does so to the satisfaction of the Court. That which neither; (i) ‘The Crown Prosecutors: nor (ii) Practicing Attorneys-Marshall and Marshall; or (iii) Michael Archibald; and of which ‘His Lordship’ appeared not to have received was ‘Referrals Assistance.’

LACK OF FAMILIARITY

Conversely, ‘Lack of Familiarity’ with the provisions contained in the ‘Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone) Act,’ such may have influenced the adjournment. The pertinent provisions contained in the ‘Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone) Act,’ may not have been remembered [CPTJA: No. 8 of 2020].

DICTATES OF PRUDENCE

As far as authority or ‘Power of Compellability’ was concerned, no such ‘Power’ resides with the eminent ‘Trial Judge, His Lordship Tunde Ademola Bakre.’ Moreover, no option is available to ‘Crown Prosecutors’ to apply to the ‘Bench’ for ‘Warrants of Arrest.’ Evidently, guiding and/or directing himself, ‘His Lordship’ may have followed the ‘Dictates of Prudence.’

PRUDENCE: AUTHORITATIVE CITATIONS

So followed and guided, the ‘Trial Judge’ took an adjournment to gain better familiarity with the provisions. Such adjournment may also allow for research on ‘Authoritative Citations’ or that considered ‘Settled Law,’ to assist the knowledge of the Court. Such ‘Citations’ often guide informed judicial rulings on the evidential issues of; (a) ‘Admissibility; or (b) Inadmissibility,’ be it ‘Oral or Documentary.’

OBJECTIONABLE READING OF STATEMENTS

Respecting the ‘Objectionable Reading of Statements,’ though by law they are ‘Fictionally’ called ‘Depositions,’ it may have been for reasons of expediency the amendments were made to aid the Courts’ [MCPA: Section 41: CPTJA: No. 13 of 2004]. Parliament has made the provisions sufficiently clear for non-practicing ‘Law-degreed Member of Parliament, ‘Maria Vanessa Bird-Browne’ to explain to her innocent, but intelligent daughter, ‘Princess Peace-Marie Xandra Browne’ for her comprehension.

NON-DISPUTED: DEPOSITIONS/ADMISSIONS

The related provision states; ‘The Depositions of all witnesses whose attendance is NOT; (a) Considered necessary by the Prosecution; and (b) Who are not required by the accused to attend the trial; (c) Shall be read into evidence’ [Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone: No. 8 of 2021: Section 13 (i)]. The ‘Act’ also allows for ‘Distillation of Admissions’ and reading into evidence certain parts with agreement by the parties concerned with the trial.

DISTILLATION OF ADMISSIONS

The provision further states; ‘Whenever possible, relevant parts from ‘an Agreed Deposition,’ should be ‘Distilled’ into a set of ‘Admissions,’ agreed between all parties, shall be read into evidence at trial’ [CPTBJA: Section 13 (2)]. Had the ‘Crown Prosecutors and Defence Attorneys’ consulted ‘Maria or Princess Peace,’ the ‘Trial Judge, His Lordship, Justice Tunde Ademola Bakre,’ may have had a ‘Peaceful Trial.’

EVIDENTIAL DIFFICULTIES

Though not necessarily of the making of the ‘DPP,’ ‘Evidential Difficulties’ appeared to have arisen for the unfortunate newly appointed ‘Juryless Trial Judge.’ Cognizance of the legal maxim; ‘Justice delayed, is Justice denied,’ His Lordship. Justice Tunde Ademola Bakre,’ insisted on a ‘December 2023’ trial [Observer Media: November 15, 2023].

TINKERERS AND GYMNASTS

It all started by the ‘Legal Tinkerers and Gymnasts.’ They have tinkered with the ‘Law,’ then gymnasticized it through the Parliament. Clearly, expediency, more than necessity appeared to have dictated certain amendments to the ‘Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act’ [Chapter 255: Sections 41 and 42]. When the ‘Parliamentary Gymnastics’ were over, the ‘Gymnasts’ came up with; (i) ‘Statement-Filing’ as part of the ‘Committal Proceedings’ process.

PAPER COMMITTAL

This was given legal effect by an amendment to the ‘Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act’ [MCPA: Chapter 255]. Some ‘Gymnasts’ in the ‘Lower and Upper Houses,’ had not even the slightest clue. Even so, the ‘Ayes has it’ [House Speaker/Senate President]. A then leading ‘Criminal Investigator/Case File Vetter, Assistant Commissioner McKenzie Joseph,’ jestingly called the exercise ‘Paper Committal.’

LEGISLATIVELY EXPLOITED

The ‘Section,’ incidentally, ‘Legislatively Exploited,’ was ‘Section 41’ [Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act (MCPA): Chapter 255]. The sectionalized provision gives ‘Committing Magistrates’ statutory authority, if ‘Satisfied’ with the ‘Written Statements,’ legally fictionalized as ‘Depositions,’ to simply commit accused persons for trial at the ‘Quarter Session Criminal Assizes’ [ Section 7: No.13 of 2004: MCPA: Section 42].

PROSECUTORIAL DILEMMA

Likened to the ‘Ferris Wheel’ at an ‘Amusement Park,’ the Office of ‘DPP’ appeared to have been in the spinning mode. It appeared that the advent of a new jurisdictional ‘Trial Judge, His Lordship, Justice Tunde Ademola Bakre,’ saw the abrupt halting of the ‘Spinning Wheel.’  This was when the ‘Prosecutorial Dilemma,’ of the ‘Acting DPP, Shannon Jones-Gittens’ appeared to have begun.

NEXUSES AND CUSTODY

From an evidential perspective, the indicted accused were never found in physical possession of the ‘Questioned Passport Bio-Pages,’ by members of; (a) The ‘Royal St. Vincent Police Force (RSVPF); or (b) Members of the Royal Police Force of Antigua and Barbuda (RPFAB). Instructively, the ‘Passport Bio-Pages’ reportedly intercepted and seized in a foreign Jurisdiction,’ could only have linked the indicted accused ‘Ray John,’ by a series of; (a) ‘Nexuses; and (b) Chain of Custody.’

TECHNOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

These, in any criminal prosecutions, are fundamental to successfully establish a ‘Prima Facie Case’ against an indicted accused person. At the close of the case for the ‘Prosecution,’ Defence attorneys may make, and advance legal arguments on a ‘No Case to Answer Submission.’ Apart from possible ‘Technological Evidence,’ the ‘Nexuses and Chain of Custody’ may have been provided by the non-attending witnesses.’

TRIAL BY JURY

The advent of the ‘Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone) Act’ [CPTJA: No 8 of 2021], has completely eliminated the ‘Jury Act.’ The non-confusing interpretation, as contained in the ‘Amendment’ states; ‘In this Act, ‘Committal Proceedings,’ means proceedings under this ‘Part’ for the committal of a person accused of an indictable offence for ‘Trial by Jury’ [No.13 of 2004: Section 5].

GRAVE PROSECUTORIAL DIFFICULTIES

Consequent upon the ‘Amendment,’ that which now seemed to have posed ‘Grave Prosecutorial Difficulties’ to ‘Crown Prosecutors,’ has been the dispensing with the ‘Preliminary Inquiry.’ This necessarily means that witnesses were not to be summoned to the ‘First Instant Court’ to be examined by ‘Committal Magistrates.’ Graver difficulties now exist, where witnesses are not compelled to attend trials at the ‘Criminal Assizes.’

ADVENT OF CHANGE

The ‘Committal Proceedings’ no longer require the tedious process of; (i) ‘Deponing witnesses under ‘Oath/Affirmation; nor (ii) Allow for binding over ‘Deponents’ for the purposes of compelling their attendance at trials at the ‘Criminal Assizes.’ These have all been part of the ‘Advent of Change.’

PERILOUS CONSEQUENCES

Then resulting from the ‘Statements-Filing’ or ‘Paper Committals,’ has been the inapplicability of ‘Perilous Consequences.’ Crown Prosecutors can no longer apply to the Court for forfeiture of ‘monetary sums’ to the Crown.’ Such may have been enforceable by ‘Trial Judges’ for; (a) ‘Non-attendance; or (b) Willful disobedience; or (c) Inexcusable absence of witnesses from the ‘Court.’

JURISPRUDENTIAL PROBLEMS

Though, at the ‘Magisterial’ level,’ from professional knowledge and practical prosecutorial experience, the dilemma that appeared to have been facing ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shannon Jones-Gittens,’ has obviously been an apparent; (i) ‘Jurisprudential Problems;’ (ii) Unavailability of Key Prosecution Witnesses; and (iii) Lack, or inadequacy of evidence, necessary to establish a ‘Prima Facie Case.’

COURT-FIXTURED TRIALS

It has never been the responsibility of ‘Trial Judges’ to ensure the attendance at ‘Court-Fixtured Trials.’ Even so, it is a ‘Judges’ responsibility to have certain familiarity. In the instant case, it will have allowed for continuation with the ‘Judge Alone Trial,’ thereby eliminated the need for further ‘trial delay’ for another week [Observer Media: February 13, 2024].

JUDICIAL PRUDENCE

That which shall be clearly understood, and seemingly very well understood and accord ‘Judicial Prudence’ by the ‘Trial Judge,’ may have been these; (a) ‘That no power exists for  the issuance of Summons or Warrants from the Bench; (b) That none shall be served, nor executed upon any person in any place where the ‘Trial Judge,’ has no jurisdiction; (c) Where such person was not indicted to stand trial at the ‘Criminal Assizes;’ or (d) Not bounded over; (e) Had no judicial obligations to attend Court; and (f) Had not absconded from the jurisdiction of the Court.’

MANIFESTATION OF JUSTICE

From time immemorial, and in the history of criminal trials, ‘Superior Courts,’ recognizing human expectations, have urged ‘Trial Judges’ that; ‘Justice must not only be seen to be done, but ‘Manifestly’ appear to be done’ [Sussex Justices: 1923: AER: 256]. This ‘Ruling’ comports with the ‘Universal Declarations of Human Rights’ [UDHR: 1948]. For the benefit of knowledge, in its ‘Articles,’ it states; ‘Everyone is entitled in full equality to; (i) ‘A fair and public hearing; (ii) By an independent and impartial tribunal’ [Article 10].

GUARANTEES NECESSARY

Among that which were prudently inserted for ‘Fairness of Trial,’ states; (iii) ‘In the determination of any criminal charge’ duly preferred against an accused person, everyone charged with a penal offence, shall have all the ‘Guarantees Necessary’ for his defence’ [UNDHR: 1948: Articles 11]. These necessarily includes, the availability of witnesses to be subjected, (if possess the ability), to vigorous ‘Cross Examination,’ following the ‘Evidence in Chief.’

KEY PROSECUTION WITNESSES

Those considered among the ‘Key Prosecution Witnesses’ include; (i) ‘Superintendent Lisborn Michael (RPFAB); (ii) Geraldo James; (iii) Londel Jones; and (iv) Ezra Lampkin-Cruickshank (St. Vincent and the Grenadines).’ Except for the jurisdictional presence of ‘Lisborn Michael,’ the other ‘Key Prosecution Witnesses’ were neither visitors to, nor residents of the independent nation of ‘Antigua and Barbuda.’.

RIGHT OF INNOCENCE

Should the ‘Court’ be satisfied that a ‘Prima Facie Case,’ has been so established on the face of the evidence, (though not of innocence), the ‘Burden of Proof,’ then slightly shifts to the accused. The ‘Constitution Order’ has made it clear, that every accused person charged with criminal offences, enjoys the constitutional Right of Innocence’ [CO: No. 1106: Section 15].

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

This was usually the juncture where the ‘Trial Judge,’ shall rule in favor of the ‘Prosecution,’ and call upon the accused to go on their Defence.’ Consequent upon the legal arguments advanced by the ‘Defence and Prosecution,’ should the ‘Trial Judge’ not so satisfied that a ‘Prima Facie Case,’ has not been so established, then he/she shall order that the accused be acquitted. Such order effectively ends the criminal trial and indictment.

CONFUSING LANGUAGE

That which was couched in ‘Confusing Language,’ states; ‘For the purposes of this ‘Act’ and any other law, a reference to a ‘Deposition’ in relation to ‘Committal Proceedings,’ shall be construed as a reference to any ‘Statement’ admitted in evidence in ‘Committal Proceedings’ under this Act’ [Section 5 (2)]. Incidentally, the provision fictionally speaks to the ‘Unsworn Statement’ as a ‘Deposition’ [Section 6].

PROCEDURAL UNDERSTANDING

The related provision then states; ‘All ‘Committal Proceedings’ shall be instituted under the direction of the ‘Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).’ For ‘Procedural Understanding,’ of that obtains, it states; The ‘DPP’ shall file; (a) ‘One or more written ‘Statements of witnesses’ in support of the charge; and (b) A list of exhibits, (if any)’ [Section 7: MCPA: Section 42A].

JUDGE ALONE TRIAL

Then one day, through the legislative process, the ‘Legal Gymnasts’ came up with the ‘Judge Alone Trial.’ This allows for   Statements ‘Fictionalized as ‘Depositions’ and filed by the ‘Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)’ to be so considered, and given ‘Judicial Notice’ in a ‘Judge Alone Trial.’ It shall be understood that ‘Judges do not institute ‘Criminal Proceedings.’

PROSECUTORIAL EXPEDIENCY

When so instituted by a power or authority, they are done so for the expressed purposes of criminal trials. Inferentially, and disguisedly, for reasons of ‘Prosecutorial Expediency,’ the provisions contained in the ‘Act’ states; ‘The ‘Act’ may be cited as the ‘Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone) Act.’ It continues; ‘An Act to provide for criminal ‘Trials without a Jury’ in certain circumstances, and for other matters connected, or incidental thereto’ [No. 8 of 2020: Section 1].

MAXIMS AND RULINGS

In the instant trial, the ‘Trial Judge’ shall be guided by the ‘Maxims and Rulings’ that allow for perceptions of a criminal proceedings that showed ‘Fairness to the person; (i) ‘Accused; (ii) Indicted; and (iii) Stood trial, whether or not by; (a) An empaneled Jury; or (b) A Judge Alone’ [Criminal Proceedings (Judge Alone Trial) Act: No.8 of 2021].

MANIFESTATION OF JUSTICE

That which have been long urged were that; (i) ‘He who asserts, must prove; and that (ii) A reasonable doubt, shall be resolved in favor of the accused person.’ Most importantly were the dicta of the ‘Apex Court- Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC),’ that there shall be ‘Manifestation of Justice.’ Awareness and guidance by the provisions contained in the ‘Act,’ could see both accused jolted into a celebratory mode, that allows for ‘wining and dining’ on ‘Valentine’s Day’ [February 14, 2024].

OUTSIDE COURT’S JURISDICTION

It has been the knowledge that no criminal prosecution shall take place without adequate preparation. This is particularly, where ‘Key Prosecution Witnesses,’ were in ‘Foreign Jurisdictions.’ Thus, had there been serious preparatory work, with the assistance of the ‘Vincentian’ counterpart, ‘Crown Prosecutors,’ may have been better positioned to address the ‘Trial Judge’ on the availability or unavailability of witnesses ‘Outside the Court’s Jurisdiction.’

DIFFICULTIES: NON-COMPELLABLE WITNESSES

The ‘Chief Crown Prosecutor’ appeared to have been placed under grave ‘Prosecutorial Difficulties with; (i) ‘Locating prospective key prosecution witnesses who have; (a) ‘Never been resident in Antigua and Barbuda; (b) Never entered or departed from the ‘Court’s jurisdiction. Now, given these truths, though competent, witnesses resident in country of domicile, or resident in other jurisdictions, they are ‘NOT’ compellable Witnesses.’

DEFENCE TEAMS

Representing the two indicted accused; (i) ‘Ray John; and (ii) Shakema Charles,’ media reports identified the Law Chambers of ‘Marshall and Marshall and practicing attorney Michael Archibald.’ The father/son ‘Defence Team’ reportedly appeared for the former, while the latter was said to have been represented by ‘Defence attorney, Michael Archibald.’ The lead ‘Defence Counsel, ‘Hugh Marshall Jr. was assisted by his son Johnathan Marshall.’

SOLE JUDGE: FACT AND LAW

Though it has been so referred, the learned ‘Trial Judge,’ functioning as; (i) ‘The ‘Sole Judge of Fact; and (ii) Sole Judge of Law,’ shall properly guide and direct himself of that which was under criminal jurisdiction for judicial consideration. He shall not be concerned of its constitutionality, as such issue was not before such a ‘Court.’ As it was not a contentious constitutional issue, the ‘Court’ shall not entertain issues of breaches of the ‘Fundamental Rights; Freedoms; and Liberties of the Individual’ [Supreme Law: CO: 1981: Chapter II].

CONCLUSION

In consequence of which, it behooves every ‘Trial Judge,’ not only to inform him/herself, but also to have intimate and keen knowledge and familiarity of the provisions contained therein. Given the anticipation of exploitation, a specific ‘Mischief’ was ‘Aimed by Parliament.’ Such remains focused upon a ‘Fair Trial.’ Therefore, the accused persons facing trial on indictment by the ‘State’s’ jurisdictional ‘Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP),’ are not only to be given the ‘Protection of Law,’ but also of the ‘Criminal Assize’ sole adjudicator, that have tried the indictments. ***

 

 

 

 

 

’

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]