BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - IT was a surreal session at the Basseterre High Court this morning (Feb. 25) as testimonies put forward by witnesses for the prosecution caused a housebreaking with intent case to end prematurely.
His Lordship Justice Darshan Ramdhani withdrew the matter from a nine-women-three-man jury and had them declare a Sandy Point man not guilty of the charge.
The matter was that of Jermaine Browne, whose trial began yesterday (Feb. 24) with three of the prosecution's four witnesses giving evidence.
Browne was charged with a February 25, 2012 3:00 a.m. offence of housebreaking with intent.
The trial ran smoothly yesterday, but it took a turn from real to surreal this morning when it was brought out in cross examination that the statements given by the third witness were not entirely true.
Browne, who represented himself, read sections of the virtual complainant's son Mr. Farrier's two statements given to the investigating officer on separate occasions which said that he could not make out the face of the individual who had broken into his home.
Through the young man's response, it was discovered that the investigating officer, Constable Charles, did not report the true statements.
Farrier testified that on the day of the incident, he told Officer Charles he saw Browne outside his bedroom window but was told by the police that he could not have seen that person because he was in police custody.
The witness said he was told by the officer to state that he saw a male figure but could not make out who the person was, which he did.
He said when the second statement was taken, Officer Charles told him that he had to repeat what was said in the first statement. He said he was further told that the truth could be told at the Preliminary Inquires, which is what he did.
The witness' testimony was corroborated by Constable Charles who said, during cross examination, that he did tell Farrier to change his statement because Browne was believed to have already been in police custody.
Charles stated that he later discovered that it was a different Jermaine in custody and so Browne became the suspect based on what Farrier had told him.
At the end of Charles cross-examination, Justice Ramdhani addressed the Court in the jury's absence.
He raised a number of concerns and indicated that he was unsure where the case was heading and that, even if properly directed, the jury could head down a dangerous path.
He also said that he could not guarantee the jury could be guided properly, especially after hearing the evidence that was presented.
Speaking at length about the evidence presented, Justice Randhani said there were many contradictions in the matter and was uncertain if the jury could be directed and bring back a fair judgment.
Counsel O'neil Simpson, prosecutor in the case, agreed that there were many contradictions, but also stated that Farrier had not once testified that he was unsure of who he saw despite what he was told to say by the police.
He said Farrier accepted that the statement was untrue but maintained that Browne is the one he saw that morning.
Before making his ruling, Justice Ramshani spoke at length about the evidence presented, stating that there were many questions and concerns.
He stressed that on top of the identification evidence given by Farrier, the Court found itself with another matter of concern with regards to what both him [Farrier] and Officer Charles said in cross examination.
He said the one thing the Court did not have was what Farrier actually said on the day of the incident.
Justice Ramdhani chastised Officer Charles for the manner in which he handled the entire incident.
"While to Court might be able to accept that there was a good reason for the first statement, why in Heaven's name it was not regularised in the second statement?" the Judge demanded.
He said one was left to question whether or not any part of the witness' statement could be trusted.
"I have never in my life heard a police come into the Court and say 'I told a witness what to say or what to write'," he said.
He told Charles that he did not investigate the incident at all.
"Instead of investigating, you interfered with the investigation," His Lordship chastised.
He said the Court was presented with "completely contradictory statements and a startling explanation".
His Lordship ruled that the trial could not continue. He told the Court that the ruling is not a fault of the prosecution therefore it should not be held responsible for the outcome.
"This ruling should not be taken against the prosecution. The prosecution acted in the manner they were expected to act."
After making his ruling, Justice Ramdhani called the jury and directed them to deliver a verdict of not guilty.
His Lordship told Browne that he had been given an amazing opportunity and that it was up to him to use is wisely or squander it.
Although acquitted of this offence, Browne still has another criminal matter pending which is set to be tried in May of this year.
