1 PO received all evidence in Multi Mln $ drug bust – Mr Dane A. Hamilton
This was one of the presenting factors that resulting in the attorneys classifying the trial as a very weak one. In the words of former Magistrate and current Attorney representing one of five men implicated in the matter Ms Valerie Stephens-Gordon, “The investigation was appalling, it was poor. The handling of the evidence was absolutely appalling.”
In the same light Attorney at law Mr Dane A. Hamilton said in an interview yesterday afternoon November 5, 2014 that the problem with the trial was basically due to the quality of the investigation. It was he who directly pointed fingers to the issue of the lone Police Officer (PO) handling all the evidence.
“One officer took it upon himself to be the recipient of all the exhibits [including] warrants, exhibits, everything and he was not in a position to put them in evidence,” said Mr Hamilton.
According to Hamilton the proceedings were not dealt with in an expeditious manner and so it dragged on. “I have been here, this is my ninth time that I have been here to attend this trial coming from Antigua and Barbuda,” he said.
Reflecting on the case Mr Hamilton recounted, “The case at the last hearing two weeks ago, the Crown was dissatisfied with these ruling, these were all procedural rulings when the Crown was seeking to have evidence admitted that did not satisfy the conditions of admissibility of such evidence.”
He recalled that Attorney at Law for Mr Jomo Jack, Mr Hugh Wildman objected, “And I supported him and the Magistrate ruled against the Crown. Now the Crown is dissatisfied with that position and filed a Notice of Appeal in relation to the ruling that was made by the Magistrate.”
Also included in the Notice of Appeal is the position taken by the court on the last day of the sitting two weeks ago where it severed Mr Jomo Jack’s trial from the other defendants on the grounds that it would be an injustice to abort the trial of the other defendants because Mr Jomo Jack's attorney could not attend yesterday’s sitting of the court because of other engagements which were well known to the Crown beforehand.
“So the Crown is of the view that in view of the fact that they have filed a Notice of Appeal, that there should be a stay of the proceedings until that appeal is heard by the Court of Appeal,” said Mr Hamilton.
The focus of learned counsel for the Crown was 'onward shall' as it pertains to a stay whenever there was an appeal. But she clearly was reading section 157 out of context according to Mr Hamilton.
He said that stays only apply whenever there is an Appeal against conviction or sentence. It does not apply to ruling made during the course of a trial otherwise both defense counsel and prosecution counsel would appeal every ruling made against them and it would open the flood gates that no trial would be completed within the time limited for its completion.
“Well the Crown has taken the position that if the Magistrate does not accede to their position that this matter be stayed now, they are offering no evidence and if you are offering no evidence then the Magistrate has no other recourse but to dismiss the matter because you would not have completed the case against the defendants,” Mr Hamilton said.
The Senior Crown Counsel Ms Tiffany R. Scatliffe said she received instructions from the DPP not to proceed any further with this trial despite the court’s decision. “I said to the Magistrate at this stage you have no alternative but to dismiss the matter and the court postponed its ruling for 20 minutes so that she would have sufficient time to reflect. The Director of Public Prosecutions came and his position was the same.”
“So I think we have all agreed that we will reach up in the Court of Appeal at some future date. Oh yea I am absolutely prepared for that,” said Mr Hamilton.
Attorney at Law Mr Patrick Thompson who fully supported Mr Hamilton added that only a higher court can properly direct the Magistrate’s Court, that is to say the High Court or the Court of Appeal. “I am treading on fine ground here because I don't want to purport to giving my learned friend legal advice but there are remedies available to her that she can get the relief that she seeks to get,” said Mr Thompson in court yesterday.
"We are saying that she has not explored those reliefs and as far as we are concerned unless this court is met with an order saying this is the position, this court must continue. That is the extent of our submissions," he added.
“The only thing I will put on record here in the event that the court disagrees, is that I remind the court to cast its mind back to my learned friend's position on the issue of severance. I do not recall a trenchant objection to severance so that my learned friend might will find herself in a difficult position even if we are to go down to the Court of Appeal because they will ask what did you say when we spoke about severance and my note and my record tells me that there was no objections at the severance. So we say it is disingenuous to not object to severance and then say we want to object to severance at this stage,” he had also said.
.png)
Follow Us On
8 Responses to “1 PO received all evidence in Multi Mln $ drug bust – Mr Dane A. Hamilton”
He white police was from the uk. R....d Ta...r. They do this kind of bull to look good, big case, claim that they have so much experience, all dem uk officers feeling their way. They have a though that local officers are not capable. Handling all the exhibits especially the money is because of the corrupt bunch the are not to be trusted. In the end the big uk investigator did a big mess of the case. And then quit his job for a better one in another country and was fired. Lol uk experts sum!!!!