BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - FOLLOWING arguments presented for both sides on Wednesday (Feb. 26) and a lengthy debate yesterday (Feb. 27), His Lordship Justice Darshan Randhani dismissed a no-case submission filed by Attorney Chesley Hamilton on behalf of his client.
Yesterday, Justice Ramdhani combed through Denicia Flemming's testimony, the key witness in the prosecution's case against Roy Murray and Darrel Sutton who are jointly charged with one count each of grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding committed on October 28, 2011.
There was a lengthy debate between Justice Ramdhani and Counsel Greatess Gordon over whether or not a person could be properly identified by the particulars of just dreadlocks, eyes, nose and by a fleeting glance of a mouth.
Gordon, in keeping with her rebuttal submission on Wednesday, maintained that Flemming was familiar with Sutton and could therefore properly identify him by just those elements. She also maintained that Flemming's testimony could be deemed credible.
Gordon argued that although there was chaos and screaming in the classroom on that morning, the witness testified that she focused on the men that were beating the victim.
She said the witness also told the Court that after she tried to get out of the classroom and failed, she went to the back of the classroom and paid attention to the assailants.
Justice Ramdhani then put to the prosecution that there was no evidence brought out to show that the two accused men knew each other.
He said the witness did state that she would see them under the tree at the Challengers bus stop but there was nothing tying both men together.
Making reference to the case of Wycliffe Liburd and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Justice Ramdhani stated that in Liburd's case, the witness was not familiar with the accused which is not so with the present matter.
Hamilton, in his rebuttal, stressed that Flemming's testimony was "tenuous at best", and emphasised on some of his submission points made on Wednesday.
He maintained that the victim also knew the accused men but, even with a shirt falling from one of the assailants’ face, could not identify his attackers.
He also stressed that there was nothing to support Flemming's identification evidence and so, it could not be credited.
He questioned where the evidence was, be it circumstantial or otherwise, to support the Flemming’s.
The Attorney maintained that Flemming's identification evidence should not be deemed credible when coupled with the fact that there were students running about and screaming during the beating.
He also stressed that Flemming could not have seen the assailants long enough to give proper identification, especially since there was no specific description of the attackers' face, adding that a fleeting glance at one of the men's mouth while the shirt was falling off could not confirm it was Sutton.
"Are you saying that in every fleeting glance case, the judge should take it from the jury?" the judge asked Hamilton.
The Attorney responded that as long as there is supporting factors that could be tied to the person, be it circumstantial or not, then it should not.
The judge then asked: "So if there is only a fleeting glance, the it should be taken?". Hamilton replied in the positive.
He said the matter involving his client is a fleeting glance case as there is no supporting evidence.
Despite the arguments put forth by Hamilton, Justice Ramdhani ruled in favour of the prosecution. He said he carefully examined all of the evidence and listened to the submissions put forward by Counsel on both sides.
He summarised the submissions and ruled the he did not agree that Flemming's evidence was unreliable.
He dismissed the no-case submission and allowed the case to continue with the jury.
