Judge wants more maturity from prosecutors in gang trial
Chief Justice Bryan Sykes yesterday accused the prosecution in the Clansman- One Don trial of being immature after it refused to agree with the defence information that was captured in the prisoners’ admission book at the Spanish Town Police Station.
The information pertains specifically to the dates on which four of the remaining 28 defendants were admitted into the lock-up as well as dates when they were dispatched from it. The lawyers for the quartet, Kalifa Williams, Pete Miller, Tareek James and Donavan Richards, are seeking to bring evidence to prove that their respective clients were in custody when the prosecution is alleging that they had participated in criminal activities with the gang.
The prosecution had also refused to agree to the contents of an eyewitness statement regarding the November 2, 2017 murder of a man called ‘Outlaw’, which defendants James, Carl Beech, and reputed gang leader Andre ‘Blackman’ Bryan are accused of facilitating. As a result of the prosecution’s refusal to cooperate, Sykes was forced to accede to the defence’s request for five policemen, including two who are on suspension, to be subpoenaed. The officers are required to give evidence in relation to the information that is in the prisoners’ admission book.
The court was told that the police are having difficulty locating the suspended cops. Consequently, James’ lawyer Ester Reid asked the judge to enquire of the prosecution if it is willing to reconsider its position. Sykes then asked the Crown if it is prepared to view the documents which were in court and agree on the information where possible.
But a senior prosecutor replied, “My Lord we are prepared to examine the documents.” However, Sykes remarked “Here is the thing now, you’re at the point now where greater maturity is expected in a criminal litigation.”
“The fact of the matter it is a criminal trial, it’s not a game. It’s about truth, it’s not about winning especially from the prosecution,” he added.
The judge then asked the prosecution what was the point of creating unnecessary difficulties if there is no reason to doubt the information that is recorded.
“What is the point of examining the document if your mind is closed?” he asked.
Earlier in the trial, another attorney, Denise Hinson, informed the judge that the lawyers had made repeated attempts to get the prosecution to agree to the documents but the Crown had declined. The senior prosecutor then told the judge that the Crown had merely refused out of being overly cautious because it did not want to appear as if the Crown was interfering in the defendant’s case. However, Sykes said that it does not appear that the parties have been making the best use of time and resources.
“I would have thought that counsel on both sides would have examined the records, speak to whoever they need to speak to, and then make serious fulfilled efforts to have the records agreed,” Sykes said. He added “At this rate, it doesn’t seem as if we are going to be finishing the trial in this term.”
The four lawyers who are the only ones left to close their cases on behalf of their clients, had faced a delay in getting the documents from the police station as well as records from Horizon Adult Remand Centre. They also encountered problems in getting the information entered as admissible because, initially, the persons who had recorded the information were not present in court when the documents were submitted and some of the required personnel have still not been located.
The trial, however, will continue today.