High praise for DPP Gaspard, deputy from Court of Appeal

THE Director of Public Prosecutions and one of his deputies came in for high praise from the Court of Appeal on Thursday for their position on an appeal filed by a Maraval man.

Dexter Williamson successfully challenged his conviction for the alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl in October 1997.

Williamson was convicted in his absence in November 2018 after a jury was allowed to deliberate on its verdict when he failed to come to court.

In October 2019, after a bench warrant was issued for his arrest and he was eventually held, Williamson was sentenced to ten years of hard labour by then High Court judge Justice Malcolm Holdip.

Williamson challenged his conviction with five grounds of contention advanced by his attorneys Keith Scotland and Asha Watkins-Montserin, none of which was opposed by the State, and which were upheld by Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Maria Wilson and Ronnie Boodoosingh on Thursday.

Deputy DPP George Busby, in a letter to the court and in an oral explanation at the hearing, said having looked at all the submissions and the history of the matter, the State felt it was unable to defend the appeal.

He said in the interest of justice, it was conceding, and since the alleged offence took place in 1997, it was the State’s position that it would not be in the interest of justice to pursue a retrial.

Wilson, who disposed of the appeal by allowing it, agreed with the State's position, quoting the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, which allows the appellate court to allow an appeal against conviction by quashing it, directing a verdict of acquittal or ordering a new trial.

She said the court did not think it prudent to order a retrial, and quashed Williamson's conviction, ordering also that a verdict of acquittal is recorded. Williamson was ordered released from prison forthwith.

Wilson commended DPP Roger Gaspard, SC, and Busby for being “true ministers of justice” by meticulously and thoroughly examining the evidence in the case. Busby was also commended for his forthrightness and Scotland and Watkins-Montserin were also praised for identifying the key issues in the appeal in their submissions.

Mohammed also commended the DPP and his deputy, emphasising also that the “criminal justice system as a whole has the capacity to engage in the appropriate correction of legal errors when they occur. This case demonstrates that.”

He said the DPP had to be commended for his instructions to concede the appeal. He said in the court’s experience, it has known Gaspard to “abide by the high standards” his constitutional office required of him.

Of Busby, Mohammed said in his own experience, he had never known him to “wilt to complex and technical arguments,” adding that he was well-known for his depth of research, robust analysis of the law and lucidity. Mohammed said Busby represented the highest traditions of a prosecuting attorney.

“A jurisprudential and ethical leaf can be taken out of your book and Mr Gaspard’s book.”

He also thanked Scotland and Watkins-Montserin for their “ably-written submissions,” adding that they came as no surprise.

In their grounds of appeal, the two argued that substantial miscarriages of justice occurred when the trial judge directed the jury on possible motive; when he admitted evidence which was not relevant to the charge and was highly prejudicial to the defence; and had misdirected or failed to comprehensively direct the jury on how to treat with that evidence, which exacerbated its prejudicial effect.

The judge was also accused of engaging in judicial interruptions during the cross-examination of witnesses brought to support the similar-fact evidence which negated the defence and bolstered the prosecution’s case, as well as failing properly to direct the jury on the accused’s right to remain silent, and that no adverse inference should be made from the fact that he chose not to give evidence in his defence.

It was also submitted that the judge presented a skewed summation which favoured the prosecution and failed to address the defence of the accused.

Williamson was charged with committing the offence against the girl on the morning of October 29, 1997. It was alleged he had gone to her home to look at a video, but his visit there “quickly broke down into a sexual encounter,” said the judge at the time of sentencing.