A High Court judge has summoned the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to court to clarify the status of criminal proceedings against six police officers charged with the 2011 murder of three Moruga friends, and when the trial is likely to begin.
Justice Frank Seepersad made the order on Tuesday, as he held a virtual hearing of a lawsuit filed by a witness in the case, who had to go to court for an injunction to get a security detail reinstated at a safe house after being left without protection for over a week.
The matter has been adjourned to December 12, when Seepersad was originally expected to hear the witness’s claim before he brought it forward.
Checks by Newsday show the criminal matter is expected to come up on a cause list on December 9, with no trial date set as yet.
Incidentally, on Monday, the Court of Appeal heard the appeal by the six officers, who were denied bail by a High Court judge in July. A decision in the appeal has been reserved.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Seepersad said he recalled the matter because of concerns about the “alarming state of affairs” the witness outlined.
He said the first was the decision to withdraw the security detail, “especially given the current climate as this country is now confronted with a ceaseless rise in crime and the year-to-date murder statistics are simply catastrophic.”
He also said he was concerned about how long the criminal case has been pending, since it involved “significant costs” to keep a witness in protective custody and provide 24-hour security for well over a decade.
Seepersad said one would have expected the matter would be prioritised and determined expeditiously.
“It is going on for far too long,” he said, adding, “It must also be a rather harrowing situation for any person who has to live under such conditions.”
Acknowledging there were delays in the criminal justice system, which he said were “intolerable,” Seepersad said they only served to undermine the public’s confidence in the efficacy of the administration of justice, and eroded the rule of law.
He said for this reason he wanted to know why the criminal case had not yet started.
Seepersad acknowledged that the delay could have been caused by the physical closure of courts during the covid19 pandemic, which put a halt to in-person trials. He also said there was no information on a “full reopening with unhindered in-person access forthcoming,” but expressed hope that with the recent appointment of 12 judges, the criminal courts will be “fully manned by judicial officers who are ready and rearing to tackle the significant backlog of criminal cases.”
Seepersad also asked the attorney for the state witness, Michael Rooplal, why the witness had not yet pleaded guilty to the lesser charge against her.
Rooplal told the judge the witness was “ready to plead.” However, some issues relating to the plea-deal discussions with the DPP have not yet been sorted out. That is the subject of another lawsuit that the witness against filed the DPP, which is being heard by another judge. It comes up for hearing in February.
In that legal challenge, the witness, a police officer on suspension who turned state witness in 2012, after she and the others had been charged with the murder of three people, has complained of the DPP’s failure to continue plea discussions with her on financial support after the trial. An indictment was filed against her in 2018, and the matter came up before a High Court master, but the police officer complained that several aspects of the plea deal had not been completed, although she was prepared to plead guilty.
In those proceedings, she was granted permission to pursue her judicial review and constitutional claim against the DPP and the Attorney General.
Rooplal admitted the plea agreement will have to be concluded before the witness gives evidence at the criminal trial.
In her latest lawsuit, the officer, who is in the custody of the Justice Protection Programme, said the security detail at the safe house where she has been for the past 11 years was removed on November 18. She complained there have been threats to her life and the police have not been investigating them.
In the application, the officer said no reason was given for the removal of the security detail and she had been left to fend for herself.
She also said although another judge granted an injunction on November 25 for the immediate reinstatement of a security detail, it was only a day later that officers returned.
“My security detail was reinstated almost 24 hours after the respondents were served with the court’s interim injunction order mandating the immediate reinstatement of same.
“It is evident that the respondents continue to flout their duties owed in law which forms the basis of my application for leave before this court.”
She is seeking permission for the court to review the decisions of the police commissioner and the Minister of National Security over their alleged failure to abide by their duties under the Justice Protection Act.
The State was represented by attorney Stefan Jaikaran. Tsonda Gayle appeared for the commissioner. Neither of them objected to the order for the DPP to appear in the matter next week.