by Rawlston Pompey
RAWLSTON POMPEY
Likened to many other accused persons, it can be no exaggeration that the ‘Criminal Justice System’ appeared to have failed indicted accused ‘Harry Josiah and co- accused Genevieve Phillip.’ The delayed 5-year trial by a ‘Jury of their Peers,’ appeared equally in breach of the constitutional provision as has been the apparent ‘Absurdly and Absolutely Wrong’ in extra-judicially altering a previously delivered ‘Trial Decision’ by ‘His Lordship, Justice Stanley John.’
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
It was a course of action that clearly speaks to acrimonious instigation without ‘Cabinet Approval.’ The sequence of events firstly started with an investigation that ‘Prime Minister Gaston Browne’ publicly intimated was ordered by a then ‘non-port folioed Minister’ and ‘non-Cabinet Member’ Dean Jonas’ [Pointe FM: March 5, 2022]. If it were not so, now assigning a portfolio with Ministerial responsibility for ‘Gender Affairs,’ he may have refuted such assertions. Having so clandestinely engineered the investigation, he reportedly caused it to be undertaken by a private ‘Fraud Investigator, Kem Warner’ [2015].
PERSPECTIVE
In any criminal trial that allows a single ‘Judicial officer’ to act as (i) ‘…Judge of Law; (ii) …Judge of Facts: (iii) …Jury of peers of accused; and (iv) …Requires to determine, and return a verdict of innocence or guilt,’ then on returning either one, know that either for the ‘Prosecution or Defence,’ there will not only be prosecutorial horrors, but also public dissent. This commentary therefore, focuses primarily on; (i) ‘…Difficult ‘Fictional dual role of Judge and Jury: (ii) …The behavior of the Judiciary in the ‘Harry Josiah/Genevieve Phillip Trial: (iii) …Submission of No Case to Answer: (iv) …Calamitous Judicial Decisions by a Judge who appeared to have been as confused as the ‘Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone) Act; and (v) … Sections 1, 7, 8 and 9 of the said Act’ [CPJATA: No. 8 of 2021].
12-COUNT INDICTMENT
In the ‘12-Count Indictment’ against ‘Harry Josiah and Genevieve Phillip’ for alleged ‘Fraudulent and Corrupt behavior,’ the ‘Judicial Decision of His Lordship, Justice Stanley John’ reflects those representing the ‘Crown Prosecution (DPP)’ as well the attorney representing the accused. These were identified as contracted practicing attorney ‘Andrew Okolo,’ assisted by ‘Junior Crown Counsel Cedric Dyer,’ and Queen’s Counsel Dane Hamilton Sr’ [February 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 28th: March 1st, 2nd and 4th, 2022].
JUDICIAL CALAMITY
It is expected that any person arrested and charged with a criminal offence shall, with reasonable promptitude be tried for such offence. In recent times, this has not been the case for many accused persons. In the instant case, it was obvious that breaches of provisions contained in the Constitution to expedite criminal trials may have been occasioned. For several grueling years, ‘former General Manager of the Antigua and Barbuda Transport Board (ABTB), ‘Harry Josiah’ and a former female employee/ co-accused ‘Genevieve Phillip,’ through no fault of theirs, have been on the ‘Indicted Trial List’ for quite some time.
PRIMA FACIE CASE
Their trial first got under way without a ‘Jury of their Peers’ [November, 2021],’ but seemed to have been aborted by judicially-assigned ‘Trial Judge, His Lordship Justice Stanley John.’ The Prosecution, having led several witnesses for the Prosecution, closed its case after; (i) ‘…Examination-in-Chief; (ii) … Defence Cross Examination; and …Prosecutorial Re-examination.’ The ‘Defence Counsel Dane Hamilton Sr, Queen’s Counsel’ submitted that there was ‘No Case to Answer,’ as on the face of the evidence, no properly directed ‘Jury’ could convict the accused. He further submitted that the evidence adduced by ‘Crown Prosecutor,’ led by contracted practicing attorney, ‘Andrew Okolo’ had failed to show that a ‘Prima Facie Case’ had been made out against the accused.
JURY OF PEERS
On the advent of the infectious, deadly and disruptive ‘Covid-19 Pandemic,’ it has not only negatively impacted every sphere of human socialization and interaction, but also every institution, including the ‘Judiciary.’ Then, there came a time when indicted criminal trials showed inordinate delays. This also saw a serious backlogging of ‘Criminal Indictments’ pending trial. Consequent upon these, persons on remand in custody and on bail and awaiting to stand trial by a ‘Jury of their Peers,’ became anxious and were agonized at the situation. Many accused persons and many legal practitioners found the situation untenable and disgustedly unacceptable.
SUN SET LEGISLATION
Legislators not only recognized the gravity of the situation and the psychological impact on accused persons awaiting trial, but also the serious prosecutorial challenges that came upon the office of the ‘Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).’ Responding to these challenges, lawmakers decided upon a legislative way out. Thus, expediently, it saw the introduction of a ‘Sunshine Legislation.’ For all intents and purposes, it was given the long title; ‘Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone) Act.’ This provides for an unprecedented ‘Mode of Trial.’ In its ‘Preliminary Part-1,’ it provides two timelines; (i) ‘…The Act shall come into force on a date to be appointed by the Minister; and (ii) …It shall remain in force for a period from the date so appointed’ [Section 1 (1) and (2): No. 8 of 2021].
FOREGONE CONCLUSION
Instructively, given great urgency, and the need to expedite ‘High Court Trials,’ the ‘Act’ appeared to have been passed faster than the time ‘Bahamas Hot Mixed Company’ took to complete re-construction of the ‘Sir George H. Walter Highway.’ Even before it may have been ‘Moved and Seconded,’ for votes on its passage, after the ‘Collection of Voices’ for ‘Ayes or Noes,’ it was a ‘Foregone Conclusion.’ For; (i) ‘…It was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives’ [May 6, 2021]; (ii) …Similarly, an overwhelming majority of ‘Senators’ passed it through the Senate’ [May 19, 2021].
CRACK OF DAWN
Then at the ‘Crack of Dawn,’ it was given ‘Royal Assent’ by ‘Governor General, His Excellency Sir Rodney Williams KGM, GCMG’ [May 28, 2021]. Before the insects had ceased their nocturnal sounds, and the cock stopped crowing, it came into force [June 7, 2021: Montserrat Alive]. Then by mid-morning the ‘Judge Alone Trial’ commenced [July 8, 2021]. Moreover, before ‘Prime Minister Gaston Browne’ could ‘Squeal and Reveal’ the name of one of his parliamentary colleagues that engineered the prosecution [Pointe FM: March 5, 2022],’ both ‘Harry Josiah and Genevieve Phillip’ had been discharged by a ‘One-Man-Judge’ [March 4, 2022].
FICTIONAL 12-MEMBER JURY
Incidentally, except the ‘Trial Judge’ himself the ‘Fictional 12-member Jury,’ in reality there was no ‘Jury’ to be so directed. Instructively, the statutory provision in the ‘Act’ makes it ‘Fictional.’ None may harbor illusions that the conduct of ‘Judge Alone Criminal Trials,’ is merely a formality as the ‘Act,’ seems to imply. Instead, it allows for a ‘Judge’ to perform the dual functions of ‘Judge and Jury.’ Thus, it states; ‘…Where a trial is conducted without a Jury, the Judge shall have all the power, authority and jurisdiction of a Jury.’ This provision not only allows a ‘Trial Judge’ to function as; (i) ‘…The normal 12-member Jury; (ii) …Foreman of the Jury: but also (iii) …Judge of Facts; and (iv) …Judge of Law.’ In other words, the lone ‘Judge’ represents ‘13 persons’ in ‘One human being’ [CPJATA: Section 7].
NOTES OF EVIDENCE
These in effect, mean that a ‘Trial Judge’ shall; (a) ‘…Receive into the ‘Notes of Evidence’ (b) …Receive legal submissions and entertain arguments from both sides: (c) …Fully assess and accordingly, make rulings based on rationality and relevancy; and (d) …Reject that which is considered irrelevant, unsupportive, irrational and unreasonable.’ These shall all be recorded contemporaneously. In the instant case, given the voluminous pile of ‘Documents’ read into evidence, no matter how well-adept, and how well-experienced, befuddling the brain of any ‘Judicial Officer’ attaining the scriptural age of ‘three scores and ten-years,’ was always going to be challenging for; (i) ‘…Himself; (ii) …Crown Prosecutors; and (iii) …Defence Counsel.’
EVIDENTIARY DUTY
Every ‘Crown Prosecutor’ knows that not only is the ‘Burden of Proof’ rests with the ‘Prosecution,’ but also an evidentiary duty to take its case beyond the threshold of establishing a ‘Prima Facie Case.’ In all criminal proceedings, the latter has always been the first hurdle to overcome so as to go on the defence. Invariably, ‘Defence Counsels’ would seek to ensure that such hurdle was not overcome. A well-known potent ‘Defence Strategy’ that many have used, has been the ‘Submission of no Case to Answer.’ The authoritative cases on this point have been the well-known ‘R v Galbraith and Ellis Taibo’ Cases [1987: 2 AER: 1060: & 1996: JCPC: 1WLR: 1039],
NO CASE TO ANSWER
Interestingly, those that have legislated the ‘Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone) Act,’ anticipated that some ‘Defence Counsels’ may use such strategy. They also anticipated that some trials could be shortened, should evidence adduced by the ‘Prosecution’ fell woefully short of that legally required to establish a ‘Prima Facie Case.’ Providing for such an eventuality, they inserted and interpretation of a ‘Decision of a High Court Judge.’ This was said to mean; (i) ‘…A verdict of guilty or not guilty: (ii) …Decision on a ‘No Case to Answer: and (iii) …Any other ruling made; (a) …Before trial (Submission in Limine); or (b) …During the course of a criminal trial against an accused person which effectively brings the trial to an end’ [CPTJA: Section 2].
DICTUM OF LORD LANE
The Defence, relied upon, and guided by criterion and legal principles contained in the Cases; ‘R v George Charles Galbraith [1981] and Ellis Taibo v R,’ ‘Queen’s Counsel, Dane Hamilton Sr’ made a ‘Submission of no Case to Answer.’ Contending that the ‘Prosecution’ had not established a ‘Prima Facie,’ sufficient to put the accused on their defence. Citing the ‘Dictum of Lord Geoffrey Dawson Lane’ [1980-1992], the ‘All-in-One Jury/Judge’, ‘His Lordship Justice Stanley K. John.’ may have been given a ‘Brain Teaser.’ The first part of the ‘Dictum’ states; ‘…If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the ‘Accused,’ there is no difficulty; the Judge will of course, stop the case.’
SECOND PART OF DICTUM
The ‘Second Part of the Dictum,’ may not necessarily have been helpful to the ‘Crown Prosecutor Andrew Okolo.’ It states; ‘…The difficulty arises where there is some evidence, but it is of a tenuous character;’ …For example, because of inherent weakness or vagueness and because it is inconsistent with other evidence.’ The ‘Dictum’ provides a rational way out. Thus, it further states; ‘…Where the Judge comes to the conclusion that the ‘Crown’s Evidence,’ taken at its highest in such that a ‘Jury’ could not properly convict on it, it is his duty on a ‘Submission being made to stop the case’ [Paragraphs 1 and 2].
CROWN’S EVIDENCE: STRENGTH/WEAKNESS
Consistent with, and compliant with a particular provision in the ‘Act,’ as it pertains to a Judge’s ‘Reasons for Decision,’ His Lordship’ notes; ‘…Mr Hamilton relied on the second limb of ‘Galbraith’ in support of his submission of there being ‘No Case to Answer.’ Further reviewing and assessing the evidence, ‘Lord Lane’s Dictum,’ may have influenced different thoughts in the ‘Trial Judge. Such ‘Dictum’ continues; (i) ‘…Where, however, the ‘Crown’s Evidence’ is such that its ‘Strength or Weakness’ depends on the view to be taken of a witness, are generally speaking, within the province of the Jury; and (ii) …Where one possible view of the facts, there is evidence on which the ‘Jury’ could properly come to the conclusion that the Defendant is guilty, then the Judge should allow the matter to be tried by the Jury’ [Sub-Paragraph (b)].
BORDERLINE CASES
Conversely, as it affects ‘Borderline Cases,’ His Lordship may have been guided by this part of ‘Lord Lane’s Dictum’ that states; ‘…They can safely be left to the discretion of the Judge.’ Inferentially, and if so persuaded, ‘His Lordship’ may have decided that there was ‘No Prospect of Conviction,’ and as it appears in the instant case, he stopped and ended the trial. Be it ‘Conviction or Acquittal,’ the ‘Act’ imposes a legal duty upon ‘One-Man/One Woman Trial Judge’ to show and give reasons for any ‘Judicial Decision’ made. The provision states; ‘…The Judge shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any event before the expiration of fourteen days, deliver his ‘Decision’ and he shall give a written judgment, stating his ‘Reasons’ therefor’ [CPJATA: Section 8 (1)].
JURYLESS TRIALS
This saw a ’12 Count Criminal Indictment’ prosecutorally and precariously dangling over the heads of two indicted accused persons for ‘some 7 years.’ Consequent upon the coming into force of the ‘Criminal Proceedings (Trial by Judge Alone) Act,’ history may have been made by the introduction and operation of a particular ‘Mode’ in criminal juryless trials [June 7th, 2021: Montserrat Alive]. That which is now known, is that there has never been as much controversy and ‘Judicial Calamity’ within the ‘Criminal Justice System.’ Such calamitous situation was occasioned when a legislative majority overwhelmingly gave parliamentary approval to ‘an Act – CPJAT’ that provides for ‘Juryless Trials.’
JUDICIAL OFFICERS
In the life of a woman, there is no such thing as being ‘Half Pregnant.’ Yet some ‘Judicial officers’ have given persons accused of criminal acts, reasons to believe that within the ‘Judiciary,’ are officers that that will be seen as impotent or starved for adjudicating competence. Few appeared to have taken time out to reflect upon their role and function within a system, specifically established for those criminally and prosecutorally-victimized and may seek the protection of the Courts. Thus, some officers were likely to deliver ‘Judicial Decisions’ that might be seen as pregnant with irrationality.
DANGER OF TRAVESTY
Real or imaginary, little appreciation appears to have been shown to such concerns, thereby prompting many aggrieved persons to harbor feelings of dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Court and dissent over some decisions. Irrespective of how bright ‘Judicial Officers’ may seem, ‘Parliament Anticipated’ that some were likely to make serious judicial blunders. In the ‘Judge Alone Trials,’ they had foreseen inherent ‘Danger of Travesty.’ They also knew that some ‘Judges’ may; (i) ‘…Misinterpret some sections of the ‘Act: (ii) …Some may misguide or misdirect themselves either; (a) …On points of Law; or (b) …On points of Fact.’ Legislators also knew that some ‘Judges’ would become so confused that they might be rendered incapable of making rational and informed judicial decisions.
ALTERED JUDICIAL DECISION
This may have manifested itself in the case; ‘The Queen v Harry Josiah and another’ [ANUHCR2017/0065: March 4, 2022]. This seemingly occurred when ‘His Lordship, Justice Stanley Kendrick John,’ unwittingly delivered ‘an Altered Judicial Decision.’ When ‘Defence Counsel Dane Hamilton Sr, QC,’ advanced legal arguments to the ‘One-Judge Trial’ on the ‘12 Criminal Indictments’ then at ‘Bar,’ the learned ‘Trial Judge’ appeared to have been ‘Fully Satisfied’ that the ‘Prosecution’ had failed to make out a ‘Prima Facie Case’ against both accused. Thus, having persuaded him to uphold a ‘Submission of No Case to Answer,’ both were made to walk-free. This came about when a ‘Verbal Decision,’ was given.
JUDGE FELL INTO ERROR
The Judge’ had so ruled, when the evidence adduced at trial and counter-arguments advanced by the prosecution in the ‘Submission of No Case to Answer’ failed to satisfy the ‘Trial Judge.’ Then ‘some 25 days later’ when the ‘Written Reasons for Decision’ were given, ‘His Lordship’ then wrote ‘…In light of the evidence of ‘Counts ‘1, 2 and 3,’ and upon further analysis of the same, the Court is now of the view that it ‘Fell into Error’ in upholding the ‘No Case Submission in respect to ‘Counts 1, 2 and 3’ [Paragraph 22: Page 6: March 30, 2022]. The two accused may not only have felt that they had been subjected to ‘Prosecutorial Terror,’ but also harbored the belief that they had been exposed to further prosecutorial consideration.
APPELATE SECTION
Instructively, in the ‘Criminal Proceedings (Judge Alone Trial) Act,’ Legislators made statutory provisions only for ‘Convicted Persons,’ so desirous may wish to challenge reasons given for a conviction. The ‘Appellate Section’ appears not to have provided for ‘Stoppage of Trial’ in the case of the ‘Trial Judge’ upholding a ‘Submission of No Case to Answer.’ The Section states; ‘…An appeal shall lie to the ‘Court of Appeal,’ at the instance of an accused person, from the decision of the Judge given under ‘Section 8,’ convicting the accused person on several grounds as contained in the ‘Act.’
GROUNDS OF APPEAL – ACCUSED
The ‘Act’ specifies; ‘GROUNDS OF APPEAL,’ without leave of the ‘Court of Appeal.’ That which convicted persons may argue includes; (i) ‘…That the Court had no jurisdiction in the case; (ii) …The Court exceeded its jurisdiction: (iii) …The Judge was personally interested in the case; (iv) …The Judge acted corruptly, maliciously, or was biased in the case; (v) …The decision was obtained by fraud; (vi) …Legally admissible evidence substantially affecting the merits of the case was rejected; (vii) …Inadmissible evidence was admitted by the Court and insufficient to sustain the decision, after rejecting such illegal evidence; (viii) …The decision was erroneous in some other point of law’ [Section 9].
GROUNDS OF APPEAL – DPP
The legislators also anticipated that ‘Crown Prosecutors (DPP)’ may also desire visitations by the ‘Appellate Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC)’ on some ‘Acquittals.’ Consequent upon such anticipation, they have inserted a particular ‘Appellate Section.’ For enlightenment of general public, the provision states; ‘…An appeal shall lie to the ‘Court of Appeal’ at the instance of the ‘Prosecution’ from the decision of the Judge acquitting the accused on the following grounds; (a) ‘…That the decision was erroneous on a ‘Point of Law; (b) …That the sentence (on conviction) is manifestly inadequate or ‘Wrong in Law’ [Section 9 (2)].
STOPPED TRIAL
In the former ‘Ground of Appeal,’ no leave of the ‘Court of Appeal’ is required for the institution of appellate proceedings. In the instant case ‘Judge’s decision to ‘Stop the Trial,’ on the ‘Submission on a No Case to Answer,’ he had effectively deprived himself and the Prosecution the opportunity for the evidence to be fully ventilated and vigorously tested by ‘Cross Examination.’ Given its stoppage and the judicial record will unlikely reflect ‘an Acquittal,’ barring ‘an Inherent Authority,’ legal luminaries have argued and shared the view that a ‘Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)’ may face monumental challenges moving forward with appellate proceedings.
GOVERNANCE AND RULE OF LAW
It would have been remiss not to have highlighted certain attitude in some jurisdictions. In most democratic Commonwealth nations, as it has been in the ‘Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS),’ the ‘Judiciary,’ as a democratic institution has been seen for its importance to ‘Governance’ and the ‘Rule of Law.’ This institutionalized system has been specifically established for the administration and dispensation of justice. This is the premier judicial arm that not only keeps the other two arms; (i) ‘…The Executive; and (ii) …The Legislature’ in check, but also those with the tendency to ignore the ‘Fundamental Rights; …Liberties; and …Freedoms of the Individual’ [CO: 1981: Section 5], and the guarantees contain in the respective ‘Constitutions.’
BEGGING FOR JUSTICE
Not infrequently, intellectuals said to have been highly qualified in particular disciplines, and positionally placed, had in some instances brought disgrace upon national institutions. These intellectuals were often seen to have made more ‘Judicial Blunders,’ than rain, lightning and thunder that nature have been seasonally or erratically descending upon the Earth. Compounding these, is a tendency to breach ‘Fundamental Rights’ of the citizenry. Then in matters of ‘Public Interest,’ some ‘Judicial officers’ were seen to have been mortally afraid of sitting administrations. As a consequence, many have delivered ‘Judgments or Decisions’ that were not only seen to be bias, but also left ‘Begging for Justice.’
REASON AND CONSCIENCE
The ‘Magisterial Bench’ appears not to be an exception. Some judicial officers have not only been said to be ‘emotionally unintelligent and egoistically offensive,’ but also uncompassionate, belligerent and insensitive.’ These were not only reflected in the condescending way a small minority speaks, but also in some decisions that were seen as starved for rationality, delivered from souls that were also seen not to have been endowed with ‘Reason and Conscience.’ These assertions appear neither ‘baseless, reckless, callous, nor malicious.’
PERVERSELY IMPREGNATED
This minority group, were often accused of making decisions that were not only ‘Perversely Impregnated,’ but also seemingly influenced by ‘Interest’ that were seen to be wearing ‘Vests.’ That which shall be known, is that except for ‘Committal Proceedings,’ ‘Magistrates’ have no jurisdiction for trial of indictable cases. Most recently, in a ‘Complaint Without Oath’ reportedly file within the Magistracy. This may have been evident when the ‘Commissioner of Police’ complains that a male accused had ‘Assaulted and Caused Grievous Bodily Harm’ to a female.
ELVIS MURRAY EXPERIENCE
Then, at first appearance, where no plea could be properly put to an accused person, it would have been unprecedented for; (i) ‘…A victim/virtual Complainant to be present at any Magistrate’s Court; and (ii) …It would have been considered grossly improper for any ‘Magistrate’ to call a ‘Virtual Complaint’ to give unsworn evidence or offer explanation.’ These reportedly pertain to the ‘State of Mind,’ and whether such person lives alone and/or apprehended fear.’ Such ‘Magisterial Practice,’ not only appears bad for personal liberty,’ but also prejudicial to justice. The experience of ‘Red Cross President Elvis Murray,’ was not dissimilar to that experienced by others, but vividly makes the point [ANR: March 28, 2022].
BASTION OF HOPE
Seemingly few ‘Officers of the Court’ have taken time to reflect upon the urging of the ‘Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC), Chief Justice, Her Ladyship, Dame Janice Pereira…’ Since she is desirous of strengthening public confidence in the ‘Judiciary,’ she has urged ‘Judicial officers’ that all material times, ‘Courts’ ought to be seen as a ‘Bastion of Hope.’ Many constitutionally-presumed innocent persons [CO: 1981: Section 15], together with some aggrieved practicing attorneys,’ have viewed such practice as being extremely harsh and unjustifiably punitive. In particular instances, even when those that enforce the ‘Criminal Law,’ or those that prosecute, had not envisioned ‘Flight Risks’ and raised no ‘Objection to Bail,’ apparent lack of knowledge of the ‘Constitutional Provisions’ have resulted in rather impulsive custodial remands.
PUNISHINGLY BRUTAL
Thus, some judicial officers have reportedly continued to project the ‘Criminal Justice System’ as an institution that is ‘Punishingly Brutal.’ These were frequently seen, either through avoidable remand in ‘Jail or on Bail’ with serious restrictions on liberty or inordinate delay with criminal trials. As a consequence, these ‘Attitudes and Actions,’ were said to have caused many to languish in agony and complete financial misery. These, in some way, shape or form, not only seemed to have summed up the last ‘7 years’ in the lives of a male and female accused person, but also several other persons sharing institutionalized residency.
CONCLUSION
Clearly, ‘Fictional or No Fictional,’ it could never be said that accused ‘Harry Josiah and Genevieve Phillip’ were tried by a ‘Jury of their Peers.’ There is clearly no substitute for the ‘13-member Court, comprising a ‘Judge and 12-member Jury.’ Given the ‘Written Altered Decision’ handed down by ‘High Court Trial Judge, His Lordship, Justice Stanley John,’ none may deny that as far as the administration was concerned, it is capable of being described as ‘Absolutely and Absurdly Wrong.’ It can be said without contradiction, that ‘Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Joann Walsh’ may be the first to admit, that in her fourteen (14) year tenure as a ‘Senior Crown Prosecutor’ within the office of the ‘DPP,’ she has ever experienced a ‘Trial Judge;’ (i) ‘…Upholding a ‘Submission of no Case to Answer;’ (ii) …Gave a verbal decision in open Court: and then; (iii) …Returned almost one month later with a ‘Written Decision’ that in part states; ‘…In light of the evidence relating to ‘Counts 1, 2, and 3,’ and upon further analysis of the same, the Court is now of the view that it fell into error in upholding the ‘No Case Submission’ in respect to ‘Counts 1, 2, and 3’ [Paragraph 22: Page 6]. It behooves ‘Trial Judges’ to know that since they are not ‘Judges of Appeal,’ ‘Decisions’ made in error and delivered in error, shall be allowed visitations by ‘Courts of Appeal.’ Now, given the unfortunate turn of events, likened to a rudderless ship drifting dangerously at sea, and without the use of a ‘Global Positioning System (GPS),’ and submerging perilously to the bottom of the Ocean, ‘Crown Prosecutors’ may do nothing as embarrassing, but to allow the apparent extra-judicially ‘Altered Decision’ to drift quietly until the ‘Sun Sets’ [June 7, 2023]. ***
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
