Judge considers first in-person hearing since covid19 ban

A HIGH COURT judge is looking at holding an in-person hearing for a judge-alone criminal trial on Wednesday in keeping with the most recent practice directions of the Chief Justice, issued on Monday.

Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds said on Monday she would liaisewith the registrar of the High Court, in keeping with the emergency rules for court operations, to have the one-day trial held at either the San Fernando High Court.

The judge proposed the in-person hearing after expressing concern that she would not want Roger Ragoopath, who is before her on a 2007 charge of robbery with violence, to give his evidence in handcuffs.

Ragoopath is in custody at the remand prison in Arouca and appeared virtually from there in handcuffs.

The judge said in ensuring that he receives a fair trial, and because she is now allowed to hold in-person hearings in certain circumstances, she will arrange to have Ragoopath give his evidence in his defence at the San Fernando High Court.

The Chief Justice’s latest practice directions still prohibit in-person hearings but allow judges to take evidence in person in exceptional circumstances where physical exhibits must be tendered in evidence, where identification is a material issue, particularly in-court dock identification, or where the witness does not have the means to appear electronically and cannot be accommodated at any of the judiciary’s virtual access customer (VAC) centres.

Permission for in-person hearings must be sought from and given by the registrar and appointments must be made to facilitate them.

Earlier in the hearing, Ramsumair-Hinds refused an application to adjourn the case after defence attorney Renuka Rambhajan said she was having difficulty getting written instructions from her client because of recent road closures due to the collapse of the bridge on the Golden Grove Road, leading to the prison.

She also raised a recent legal challenge in another matter, also being heard by Ramsumair-Hinds, on the legality of virtual trials. Ramsumair-Hinds assuaged Rambhajan’s concerns, but ruled she would not adjourn the matter.

The judge also took a hard-nosed position, saying she will be “getting on with the business of trying cases,” in obvious reference to the chastisement by Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, in his letter to the Chief Justice, earlier this month. Gaspard said, in response to only having filed 12 indictments for the last year, that there was nothing stopping trial judges from reducing the backlog of cases already in the system.

“I am getting on with the business of trying cases,” Ramsumair-Hinds declared in response to the prosecution’s concerns with what the defence advancec in the submission for the adjournment.

Prosecutor Maria Lyons Edwards said it was her instruction from the DPP that the trial ought not to proceed, in the interest of fairness, since the State did not want to prosecute a matter that could result in a nullity because of the concerns raised by the defence.

But the judge did not budge from her position that the case would start on Monday.

“Your duty is to present your case. Let’s get on with the matter,” she insisted, adding that it would also be helpful if the other stakeholders in the criminal justice system could also move along with trying cases.

The judge then arraigned Ragoopath and read out the evidence his alleged victim, Ramesh Mangroo, gave at the magistrates’ court identifying him as one of his attackers. Mangroo is dead and his death certificate was tendered into evidence.

After reading out Mangroo’s deposition, the judge was forced to stop the trial because the prosecution’s only other witness, the police officer who charged Ragoopath, could not get to the court’s VAC centre at King’s Court in Port of Spain and wanted to give evidence from the Siparia police station.

This again drew the ire of the judge, who exclaimed,” I am finding myself thwarted despite my best efforts to ensure the integrity of the proceedings.”

Ramsumair-Hinds reminded that the VAC centres were set up in response to the DPP’s saying he did not want his office to become a courthouse, and would not accommodate witnesses testifying there.

The judge said to ensure the integrity of all trials, she required the presence of court marshals at places where witnesses are to testify. She faulted the State for not bringing it to the court’s attention earlier so that marshals could have gone to the police station instead.

“We must say what we mean and mean what we say. If we have a concern over the integrity of the evidence and the court goes through the preparation….There is something to be said and something wanting outside the Judiciary’s control.”

The matter has been adjourned to Wednesday, when it is expected to be heard in San Fernando, since the matter, which took place in South Oropouche, falls under the jurisdiction of that court.