Defence protests document’s disclosure

MANCHESTER:

THE DEFENCE counsel strongly opposed the disclosure and submission of a CR-12 document on Thursday in the multimillion-dollar Manchester Municipal Corporation fraud trial, citing that the documents were served late and unacceptably and could be to the detriment of their clients.

A CR-12 is a police-completed document bearing detailed information of an individual arrested and charged for an indictable offence.

Attorney Danielle Archer stated that she had not been in receipt of some documents to which the prosecution was making reference, pointing out the missing signature of a handwriting expert on specimens.

However, the prosecution insisted that the defence had been served the document in two parts.

The defence hit back, labelling the move unacceptable, stressing that the document should have been disclosed in its entirety in the first instance.

The prosecution continued to justify their decision by noting that details of the first part of the document would have made reference to the second.

However, presiding judge AnnMarie Grainger reminded the prosecution that “partial disclosure is not disclosure” and sought to affirm the points made by the defence that they cannot accurately asses documents served when other elements from said documents are missing.

After consideration of the points made, the judge allowed the submission of the document.

A police officer attached to the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency (MOCA) returned to the stand on Thursday and went through a series of documents in relation to former deputy superintendent of roads and works at the corporation, Sanja Elliott; former temporary works overseer, Kendale Roberts; and Elliott’s caretaker, Dwayne Sibbles.

So far, 36 witnesses have taken the stand.

There is no certainty as to the accurate number of witnesses remaining.