The State v Jason Morris

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Madame Justice Nalini Singh
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2024
• Neutral Citation: TT 2024 HC 122
• Docket Number: CR-HC-POS-IND-335-2023-1
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

The State

and

Jason Morris

Before

THE HONOURABLE Madame Justice Nalini Singh

CR-HC-POS-IND-335-2023-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CRIMINAL DIVISION PORT OF SPAIN

REPRESENTATION:

Mr. Ulric Skerritt & James Caruth appeared for the accused.

Ms. Kezia Gray-Birkette & Ms. Rebecca Trim-Wright appeared for the State.

RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF NOTES OF INTERVIEWS 3 & 4

1 The accused was charged with the concealment of Amy Joseph's body contrary to section 16 of the Coroners Act Chap. 6:04. The State's case was premised entirely on oral admissions alleged to have been made by the accused during four police interviews. The oral admissions which were alleged to have been made by the accused during the third and fourth police interviews were ruled inadmissible. These are my reasons for so doing.

Context

2 I start with how the accused came to be in police custody.

i. The First Police Interview

3 Prior to the discovery of Amy Joseph's body, at 12:18 AM on Thursday the 18 ^th of June 2009, CPL James and PC Kyrn Lewis interviewed the accused at the Cunupia Police Station. The interview lasted thirty-two minutes. During that time the accused was asked 27 questions which CPL James recorded in a question-and-answer format in the contemporaneous note he made of that interview. At the end of the interview, the accused was asked whether he wanted to read the note or whether he wanted it to be read to him. The accused elected the latter. Once the note was read to the accused, he was asked whether he wished to add alter or correct anything in it and the accused declined to do so. The accused was then invited to sign and date each page as well as initial all the errors on those pages and the accused declined to do this. CPL James then signed and dated each page and included a certificate at the end of the note which detailed that the aforementioned had occurred.

4 During this interview, the accused told the police that:

• i. At 10:30 PM on Tuesday the 16 ^th of June 2009, he went to Amy Joseph's home. He went there to check her and he did not stay there too long. He added that at about midnight, she called him and they spoke for about three minutes.

• ii. He admitted that one week before Tuesday the 16 ^th of June 2009, he visited Amy Joseph at her home and picked her up so that she could spend the night at his place. He said that he dropped her back home at 5 AM the following day. He said he could not say whether her family knew about this.

• iii. He had a girlfriend but Amy Joseph was someone with whom he “take ah lil cut”.

• iv. Amy Joseph had a “man” called Dennis. The accused told the police that Dennis gave Amy Joseph “plenty trouble” meaning that they argued a lot.

• v. He confirmed that he could not tell the police anything to help the police find Amy Joseph. After the interview, the accused was allowed to leave the station.

ii. The Three Oral Admissions

5 The second plank of the State's case revolved around three utterances. This is how on the State's case, those utterances arose. At 4:01 PM on Thursday the 18 ^th of June 2009, whilst ACP Subero was at the Cunupia Police Station, he received a call from the mother of the accused. At the time she was an Inspector of Police. She told ACP Subero that her son had information in relation to the missing person. ACP Subero testified that based on that call, he and CPL Ramsubhag proceeded to the home of the accused. ACP Subero said that when they got there, the mother of the accused introduced them to the accused. The officers in turn identified themselves to the accused. CPL Ramsubhag then informed the accused that they were assisting in a report of a missing person, specifically Amy Joseph and “that the accused may know the facts surrounding the circumstances of her.” CPL Ramsubhag said that the accused replied:

“She shoot she self in the car with ah gun from the glove compartment and I dump the body in Caparo with the gun in Maracas.”

Upon hearing this statement, CPL Ramsubhag immediately cautioned the accused and informed him of his rights and privileges. The caution which was administered to the accused at this stage was the Rule II caution.

6 The accused then replied:

“Ah go carry allyuh for the body.”

CPL Ramsubhag again cautioned the accused using the Rule II caution.

7 Following this exchange, the accused and his mother were invited to sit in the marked police vehicle. The accused and his mother along with ACP Subero and CPL Ramsubhag then drove away from the home of the accused. After driving for about 15 minutes on the Caparo Brasso Main Road, they reached Solomon Drive. The accused instructed them to drive further into the street by pointing out a direction to drive, indicating where they should go. After proceeding for about 600 meters into Solomon Drive, the accused instructed the driver to stop. He pointed in an easterly direction and said:

“There ah throw the body.”

Upon hearing this, Constable Ramsubhag cautioned the accused again using Rule II of The Judges' Rules. CPL Ramsubhag then exited the vehicle and walked approximately 15 meters in the direction pointed out by the accused. Meanwhile, the other occupants of the vehicle also exited the vehicle and stood nearby.

8 After three to four minutes, CPL Ramsubhag returned and informed the accused that he had found the body of an African female dressed in a black top and grey sweatpants. Once again, CPL Ramsubhag cautioned the accused using Rule II, and it was at this point that the accused remained silent. The accused was then taken into police custody and lodged at the Gasparillo Police Station.

9 Now in police custody, this is how the third and fourth police interviews occurred with the accused.

iii. The Third Police Interview

10 On Friday the 19 ^th of June 2009, SGT Pariman and CPL Ramsubhag interviewed the accused at the Gasparillo Police Station. By this time, the accused had spent the night in police custody at the Gasparillo Police Station. He was first cautioned and informed of his rights and privileges. The interview lasted two hours and twenty minutes. During that time SGT. Pariman asked the accused 54 questions which CPL Ramsubhag recorded in a question-and-answer format in the contemporaneous note he made of that interview. At the end of the interview, the accused was asked whether he wanted to read the note or whether he wanted the note read to him. The accused elected the former. Once the note was read aloud by the accused, he was asked whether he wished to add alter or correct anything in it and the accused declined to do so. The accused was then invited to sign and date each page as well as initial all the errors on those pages and the accused declined to do this. SGT Ramsubhag stated that he read the notes to the accused and asked the accused if the note was true and correct and the accused replied that it was. He then asked the accused whether he wished to make any changes and the accused said no. SGT Ramsubhag and SGT Pariman then signed and dated each page and included a certificate at the end of the note which detailed that the aforementioned had occurred.

11 During this interview, the police revisited the areas which were already covered in the accused's initial interview with the police at 12:18 AM on Thursday the 18 ^th of June 2009 at the Cunupia Police Station. So the police again enquired from the accused if he knew Amy Joseph and in what circumstances he came to know her. They again asked the accused if he knew the name of Amy Joseph's boyfriend and whether he knew what problems she was having with her boyfriend. They also revisited the nature of the relationship between Amy Joseph and the accused.

12 What happened next was that the accused gave the police further incriminating evidence which they did not have in their possession. This is how the matter unfolded:

“Q: When was the last time you had sex with Amy?

A: On Wednesday 17 ^th June, 2009.

Q: Where and when did this occur?

A: Around 12:30 AM Wednesday 17 ^th June, 2009 we started to make out inside the car and then had sex. I was parked by the Savannah in Homeland Gardens.

Q: How long did you all stay there?

A: About 15 to 20 minutes.

Q: Where did you all go after?

A: She said she wanted to come home by me and spend the night.

Q: What time?

A: About 1:00 AM Wednesday morning…”

13 So what the accused did during this phase of the third interview is that he admitted to having a sexual encounter with Amy Joseph on Wednesday the 17 ^th of June 2009, which was the day before she was reported missing. This admission linked him directly to the victim on the last known day she was alive. Further, he disclosed that they engaged in sexual activity in his car whilst it was parked in a specific location, thus providing details that could potentially corroborate evidence or establish a timeline of events leading up to Amy Joseph's disappearance. Additionally, the accused stated that Amy Joseph expressed a desire to spend the night at his place after their sexual encounter. This information implied that she was in his company until at least 1:00 AM on the 17 ^th of June 2009, which is significant considering she was reported missing later that day.

14 Following this, the police persisted in asking the accused a series of questions which he repeatedly declined to answer. This is what happened:

“Q: What happened when you reach home with Amy?

A: Not answering that question.

Q: What became of Amy Joseph?

A: No answer.

Q: Did you take the police to Solomon Drive Palmiste yesterday?

A: No answer…

Q: When was the last time did you see Amy Joseph alive?

A: No answer.

Q: I would like you to give me an account of your whereabouts from Wednesday 17 ^th June, 2009 to Thursday 18 ^th June, 2009.

A: No answer…

Q: What did you and Amy did at your home that night?

A: No answer.

Sgt Pariman informed Jason Morris that he had information that on the night of Wednesday 17 ^th June,...