The State v Jason Morris
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Madame Justice Nalini Singh |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2024 HC 121 |
| Docket Number | CR-HC-POS-IND-335-2023-1 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
THE HONOURABLE Madame Justice Nalini Singh
CR-HC-POS-IND-335-2023-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CRIMINAL DIVISION PORT OF SPAIN
Mr. Ulric Skerritt & Mr. James Caruth appeared for the accused.
Ms. Kezia Gray-Birkette & Ms. Rebecca Trim-Wright appeared for the State.
The accused was charged with the concealment of Amy Joseph's body contrary to section 16 of the Coroners Act Chap. 6:04. The sole issue which is dealt with in this ruling arose this way.
On Tuesday the 8 th of April 2024, the trial commenced. Since the accused elected to have his trial proceed by way of Judge Alone, this was the mode of trial adopted. The evidence of the State's first four witnesses was heard via Formal Admission. They were Osmond Joseph, Ann Marie Singh, Steve Rajoo and SRP Simeon Cornwall. The State then called two witnesses, WP Sgt. Taramatee Williams and Cpl. Kern Lewis. The matter was then adjourned to Tuesday the 9 th of April 2024 to continue.
On Wednesday the 9 th of April, 2024, the State proceeded with the Formal Admission of Therese Meharris followed by the live testimony of Ag. ACP Oswain Subero and Cpl. Jeremiah Ramsubhag. On completion of evidence for that day, the State indicated that they intended to submit two more formal admissions as well as three Section 39 applications for two deceased witnesses and one who was unwell. Due to the Eid-ul-Fitr holiday on the 10 th of April 2024, the matter was then adjourned to the 11 th of April 2024.
On Thursday the 11 th of April 2024, the State formally entered the evidence of six more witnesses; Labiba Aziza Mohammed, Yvonette Joseph, Cpl. Trevor Peters, Ryan Ramoutar, Mitchum Joseph and Joseph Lightbourne. Also, two Section 39 Applications in relation to Dane James and Officer Nobbee were unopposed by Defence Counsel and therefore the depositions of those two witnesses were read into evidence.
In relation to the final Section 39 Application with respect to Sgt. Pariman, when asked by the Court when the State would be in a position to do that application, State Counsel indicated:
“My Lady, well, we — My Lady, hope — sometime next week. We will have to — I did message the witness to ask if he had any further medicals to send to us and, if not, the doctor's information so we could have the doctor subpoenaed, please, My Lady. I am awaiting that response. We do have the referral form which speaks to the condition, the treatment and — well, a doctor's name but it can't — we — we don't discern it, in terms of how it's written, please, My Lady.”
The Judiciary declared Friday the 12 th of April 2024 a Dies Non, and so the Court enquired whether Wednesday the 17 th of April would be a convenient date to adjourn the matter. State Counsel indicated that by the next day –that is, Friday the 12 th of April 2024, they could get the information to confirm the subpoena for the doctor and liaise with the Team. State Counsel also mentioned for the record, that she enquired from the witness whether he would have been able to give the evidence virtually from his home but the witness indicated that he would not. He said it would place him in a stressful position as he had had a heart attack and was admitted to the hospital on the 26 th of March 2024 and was discharged on the 29 th of March 2024. The Court then requested that State Counsel inform the Court of its position by Tuesday the 16 th of April because it didn't want to return on Wednesday the 17 th of April and the State wasn't ready. State Counsel responded:
“Yes, please, My Lady. As soon we know, even if it's before Tuesday, we will let the Court know.”
On Wednesday the 17 th of April 2024, the matter was called and State Counsel indicated that they were not yet in possession of the medical evidence as information from the Health Authority's legal department which was received the said morning, indicated that the relevant doctor was on leave. The Court was told that enquiries were being made to see if any other doctor would have attended to Sgt. Pariman during his stay at the hospital. The Court enquired whether the State had any other witnesses to call and it was indicated that that was the last witness on the State's case. The Court then enquired when State Counsel might be able to get the information and Counsel stated that correspondence was returned to the legal department and “they do not take long to respond to us”. State Counsel was hopeful that the relevant information would be in their possession between Wednesday the 17 th of April 2024 and Thursday the 18 th of April 2024.
At this point, Defence Counsel responded by stating:
“My Lady, we can't wait in perpetuity on — on the State to provide the witness. This could go on and on. And my experience with the hospital is—chances are they may not be able to get that within a couple days — you know? The chances—I will ask My Lady to ask the State to close their case. I don't know that we can wait forever, My Lady, to have this done.”
The matter was therefore stood down until noon, with the stipulation that if the State did not have anything by then, it would be asking the State to close its case. At this point, State Counsel responded:
“My Lady, we will not be able to close our case, in light of the fact that this witness is the final witness in the matter, please. But we are going to try — to meet the Court's deadline of 12 o'clock.”
Upon recall of the matter at noon, State Counsel indicated that she corresponded with one Ms. Scipio who informed her that although efforts were being made, she would not be able to facilitate finding out whether there was another doctor who would have been part of the healthcare of Mr. Pariman for that said day. Ms. Scipio stated that if the matter was adjourned, she would make attempts to have a doctor appear virtually from her office.
Defence Counsel's position was that whilst he would like to give the State an opportunity, it seemed that things would continue along a particular path and parties may end up just wasting time. He stated, “So, as it is now, we have wasted an entire day”. State Counsel then indicated that she also wrote to another medical institution, St. Clair Medical, where the witness informed her that he had a medical procedure done the day before and she was awaiting word from them.
At this juncture, the Court enquired from State Counsel whether the evidence of the witness was critical to its case and State Counsel indicated that this witness would have interviewed the accused. State Counsel conceded that the notes of that interview were already tendered as evidence before the Court through Sgt. Ramsubhag who recorded it. The Court then asked, “So you still have the evidence. No?”. State Counsel replied, “Yes, please, My Lady”. Defence Counsel however raised the issue that the interview went in on the belief that the witness was going to come and his evidence would supplement the evidence that had gone before. Defence Counsel stated that the person who actually conducted the interview is not before the Court and therefore he would have to ask the Court in those circumstances to revisit its decision in relation to that evidence unless the State can get the particular witness in. The Court did not revisit the decision to admit the notes at this point.
The Court then asked what the likelihood was that someone could be obtained to testify the following morning. State Counsel indicated that more than likely she would not have the information by the next day and stated that while she was aware that the matter was of some vintage, she submitted that the accused was on bail. State Counsel also stated that since the matter started they were able to call all the witnesses who were available and, they also filed all the formal admissions. State Counsel also raised the fact that it was a Judge Alone trial. She requested that in fairness to the State, the matter should be adjourned to allow the State to have an opportunity to get information for a doctor to appear or to have the witness appear. Defence Counsel objected to the request for an adjournment but the Court ruled that it was giving the State until 9:00 a.m. the following morning to produce a witness. The indication was given by the Court that if no witness was forthcoming then, the Court would be calling upon the State to close its case.
On Thursday the 18 th of April 2024, the matter was called and State Counsel indicated that they made efforts but did not receive the contact information for a doctor who attended to the witness from either the San Fernando General Hospital or St. Clair Medical. Counsel again requested more time in order to communicate with a doctor in relation to the application. When asked by the Court if the request was not granted, what would be the State's position, State Counsel indicated that she would be in the Court's hands but would be unable to close its case based on the fact that they still had an outstanding witness. According to the Court's transcript, this is what transpired:
MS. GRAY-BIRKETTE: My Lady, the State is seeking more time in order to acquire the contact for the doctor, either doctor, in order to have communication with them in relation to the application.
THE COURT: And if I'm not giving you that time, then what?
MS. GRAY-BIRKETTE: My Lady, I am in the Court's hand, but the State would not be able to close its case today, based on the fact that we still have that witness.
THE COURT: Okay. So I am not giving you the extra time. So do you have another witness to call in your case?
MS. GRAY-BIRKETTE: Not at this time, please, My Lady.
THE COURT: What...
To continue reading
Request your trial