The State v Peters et Al
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Holdip, J. |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2016 HC 96 |
| Docket Number | CR. No. 12 of 2009 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 15 January 2016 |
High Court
Holdip, J.
CR. No. 12 of 2009
Mr. I. Khan SC, Mr. G. Peterson SC, Ms. J. Balkaran, Ms. K. Thompson, Ms. S. Sandy appeared on behalf of The State
Mr. M. Merritt, instructed by Mr. C. Chandler appeared on behalf of Shervon Peters
Mr. M. Merritt, instructed by Ms. A. Romero appeared on behalf of Keida Garcia
Mr. S. Mohamed, instructed by Mrs. S. Benjamin-Roach appeared on behalf of Marlon Trimmingham
Mr. C. Selvon, instructed by Ms. T. Francis-Brooks appeared on behalf of Earl Trimmingham
Mr. M. Merritt, instructed by Mr. S. Noreiga appeared on behalf of Ronald Armstrong
Mr. I. Brooks, instructed by Mrs. S. Benjamin-Roach appeared on behalf of Antonio Charles
Mr. U. Skerritt, instructed by Mr. N. Ali appeared on behalf of Joel Fraser
Mr. W. Sturge, instructed by Mr. R. Vincent Charles appeared on behalf of Lyndon James
Mr. R. Valere, instructed by Mr. S. Wilson appeared on behalf of Devon Peters
Mr. J. Pantor, instructed by Ms. C. Crevelle appeared on behalf of Anthony Dwayne Gloster
Mr. L. Sankersingh, Ms. L. Lakhan instructed by Mr. A. Rahman appeared on behalf of Jamille Garcia
Criminal practice and procedure - No case submission — Murder — Joint Enterprise — Whether the jury was entitled to draw inferences from the inconsistencies put forward by the 6 th defendant when giving his version of events surrounding the discovery of the firearm — Whether the prosecution submitted evidence that indicated that the 6 th defendant occupied the premises prior to the finding of the fire arm or had any degree of control over the premises — Whether the evidence adduced was capable of supporting a conviction.
On the 23rd November 2015 the Prosecution through Israel Khan, SC closed its case against the accused
By submissions filed the 7th December 2015, Mr. Brooks has asserted that:
-
a. The Prosecution has not proven prima facie occupation, possession or control of Kieda Garcia's home by Antonio Charles.
-
b. That the nature of the evidence of the firearm itself was tenuous in nature.
-
c. That there is no nexus or connection upon which to ground possession of the firearm on Antonio Charles.
The accused No. 6 Antonio Charles was indicted for murder on the 24th July, 2007 for the offence of Murder. It is the case for the Prosecution that the accused being aware of the kidnapping and disappearance of Mrs. Vindra Naipaul Coolman kept her against her will after which she was killed.
The Prosecution's case is that Vindra Naipaul Coolman was kidnapped on the 19th December 2006 and killed during the period 19th December 2006-12th May, 2007.
The accused Antonio Charles was interviewed by Officer Elvin Mings and Ex Inspector Nadhir Khan on the 6th January, 2007 at the Old Police Headquarters, Port of Spain.
During that interview as was stated at page 1 thereof, the accused when asked whether he had any nicknames stated that “sometimes they call me Boneo, Hedges.”
Antonio Charles was interviewed again by Ag ASP Harry and PC De Gale at the Homicide Bureau of Investigation on the 12'” May, 2007. During that interview Antonio Charles indicated that he knew the other accused also stating that he was familiar with the place called the “Black Album” where “all ah we does go in dey and lime.” It is to be noted that prior to stating that the accused knew, Buffy, Ninja, Dwayne, Bobo, 22, WASA, Iron and Kieda. See page 2 of the said interview notes.
The Prosecution cited the various aspects of the Interview notes of Antonio Charles dated 6th January 2007. The accused made the following voluntary utterances from which the jury is entitled to draw inferences of his connection to the house where the firearm was discovered, as well as his connection to the accused:
At page 1 of the interview notes:
Que.. Where do you live at present?
Ans.. Lamp Pole 86 Upper La Puerta Hillcrest, Diego Martin
Que: Have you heard about the kidnapping of Vindra Naipaul?
Ans.. Yes I hear about it, many nights on the news when I home with my mother
At page 5 of the interview notes:
Que.. Do you know why you are here?
Ans.. No, I don't know why I here, I swear, this thing real beating my conscious. The only thing is last night I rock back with my girl and drink about three Heinekin I walking up the road and rain start to drizzle and it was late and my mother does get real vex. I don't know how I just knock out and where they get the firearm I not living there, by me was clean as ah whistle so I want to know what I doing here cause I not living there. The next fella mother telling the officer that I not living there. Keda and them mother. I knock out like ah baby.
At page 6 of the interview notes:
Que: When the officers found the Firearm, were you present?
Ans.. I was sleeping like ah baby
Interview notes of Antonio Charles dated 12th May 2007 - The accused made the following utterances from which the jury is entitled to draw inferences of his connection to the accused men and the red brick house where, according to the Prosecution's case, the deceased was murdered:
At pages 1 and 2 of the interview notes:
Que.. Who do they call Black Boy?
Ans.. That is Buffy brother. He name is Devon Gluster,
Que.. Do you know who they call Ninja?
Ans.. Yeah. I ain't know he name. But he surname could be Gluster cause all ah dem is family.
Que.. Do you know who they call Dwayne?
Ans.. Yes sir. He name is Dwayne Peters.
Que.. Do you know who they call Twenty two?
Ans… Yeah. He first name is Ronnie but I ain't know he last name.
Que.. Do you know anyone by the name of Bobo?
Ans.. Yeah that is Marlon brother. He name is Earl Trimmingham.
Que.. Do you know anyone by the name of Buffy?
Ans.. Yeah he name is Chevon Peters.
Que.. Do you know anyone by the name of Wasa?
Ans: Yes that is Jameel Garcia.
Que: Do you know anyone by the name of Iron?
Ans: Yeah but me and he doh really mingle. I ain't know he real name.
Que.. Do you know anyone by the name of Keida?
Ans.. Yeah Keida Garcia
Que.. Do you know of the name of Black Album?
Ans: That is the house wey 51 and them grandmother give them because she renovating she place and she let them stay over they. It had no current but 16 mother have a shop next door and them grandmother let she gave them current. That is why they does call it the Black Album because it have no current.
Que.. Where is that house?
Ans: It is in La Puerta about five to six house away from me.
At page 3 of the interview notes:
Que.. Did you ever had cause to go in that house?
Ans. Yeah, all ah we does go in dey and lime.
Que; Who is all ah we, who does lime there?
Ans.. Z, 16, Crime B, U, 58, Q, Y, all ah we. I meh self does he in there liming with all ah dean.
Que.. Does it have a pool table?
Ans.. Yeah it had a pool table but we got that from a man who was moving out. He name is Martin. I ain't know he last name. He give the pool table to 76 and like 76 sell the pool table to a man. I know that man nickname, they does call him Tallman who living out the road in La Puerta.
Que.. The week before Christmas last year, 2006 and the week after Christmas last year, 2006, were you in La Puerta?
Ans.. Yeah working hard in the river.
At page 4 of the interview notes:
Que.. When you were held on the 6th of January, 2007 at Keida Garcia's home, did you tell him that 58 just ran out the house?
Ans.. Yes, he know that. The police two, three times and when we come out the room the police say they find the firearm. And when we came out ah jail, Raymond yard, 58 say he vex he leave the firearm there and make them get lock up. Keida mother say she never see the policeman pick up a firearm from she house cause she was a witness to the search.
Based on the above, the Prosecution submitted that the jury is entitled to draw inferences from the inconsistencies put forward by Antonio Charles when giving his version of events surrounding the discovery of the firearm.
The law in relation to inferences especially at a no case to answer submission was thoroughly discussed in the Privy Council decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Selena Varlack (2008) UKPC 56. At p. 11 of that judgment, the Board quoted from the very matter mentioned in the defence's submissions (that is the judgment of King CJ in the Supreme Court of South Australia in Questions of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No. 2 of 1993) (1993) 61 SASR 1). The Board considered the following passages (not fully quoted by defence) to be an accurate statement of the law:
“It follows from the principles as formulated in Bilick (supra) in connection with circumstantial cases, That it is not the function of the judge in considering a submission of no case to choose between inferences which are reasonably open to the jury, he must decide upon the basis that the jury will draw such inferences which are reasonably open, as are most favourable to the prosecution. It is not his concern that anyyalktolgat2night be set aside by the court of criminal appeal as unsafe. Neither is it any part of his function to decide whether any possible hypotheses consistent with innocence are reasonably open on the evidence…He is concerned only with whether a reasonable could reach a conclusion of a guilty beyond reasonable doubt and therefore exclude any competing hypothesis as not reasonably open on the evidence…
I would re-state the principles, in summary form, as follows. If there is direct evidence which is capable of proving the charge, there is a case to answer no matter how weak or tenuous the judge might consider the evidence to be. If the case depends upon circumstantial evidence and that evidence if accepted, is capable of producing in a reasonable mind a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and this is capable doubt and this is capable of...
To continue reading
Request your trial