The State v Lewis et Al
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | John, J. |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1998 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1998 HC 156 |
| Docket Number | No. 108 of 1998 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 09 November 1998 |
High Court
John, J.
No. 108 of 1998
Ms. A. Quinlan for the State
Mr. G. Phillips for the 1 st Accused
Mr. C. Pope for the 2 nd Accused
Mr. F. Munroe-Browne for the 3 rd Accused
Practice and procedure - Application to adduce fresh evidence — Three accused indicted for offence of sexual intercourse with a female under 14 years old contrary to s. 6(1) of the Sexual Offences Act — Nine days after the start of trial the State made application to adduce fresh evidence, that of Janelle Littren, the first person to have seen the minor after the incident — Whether the Court should exercise its discretion and allow the State to call Janelle as a witness although she did not give evidence at the preliminary enquiry — Court found that failure of prosecutor to call Janelle at preliminary inquiry was not deliberate — Notice served on defence found to be adequate — State allowed to lead evidence.
The three accused have been indicted for the offence of sexual intercourse with a female under the age of fourteen contrary to the provisions of section 6(1) of the Sexual Offences Act no. 27 of 1986.
In the early afternoon of Saturday 10 th February 1996 N.B. a minor was forcibly taken by the three accused into an abandoned house at Belmont where they took turns in criminally assaulting her. immediately afterwards they left the house leaving N.B. there. She came to the gallery where she saw and called out to a woman who has been identified as Janelle Littren.
The trial began on the 7 th day of October 1998 the state made an application to adduce fresh evidence. The notice was served on the defence on Thursday 15 th October 1998.
The evidence to be adduced is that of Janelle Littren. It is not in dispute that this witness was available at the time of the preliminary inquiry. the reason advanced for her not testifying is that she was 15 years of age at the time she was advised by her mother not to give evidence. she was cited as a witness at the preliminary inquiry and was in fact served with a summons to attend by failed to attend court.
The short, but not altogether simple point, is whether the court ought to exercise its discretion and allow the state to call her as a witness although she did not give evidence at the preliminary inquiry.
A statement was recorded from Janelle Littren on the 27 th February 1996, some weeks after the alleged incident.
In R v Gomes [1962] 5 W.I.R. 7 Bollers J, after an examination of several authorities held that where evidence is available to the prosecution at the time of the preliminary inquiry and is not led, such evidence is admissible at the trial in the supreme court.
Since the decision in Gomes (supra) there have been several cases where the courts have allowed new or additional evidence to be introduced at the trial notwithstanding the fact that such evidence was available at the criminal proceedings.
In R v Clarke [1970] 16 W.I.R. 59 the appellant was convicted on an indictment...
To continue reading
Request your trial