Moruga cops on murder charge raise pre-trial publicity concerns

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC, appeared in court on Monday, as summoned, in the lawsuit filed by a state witness in protective custody who had to seek an injunction to get a security detail reinstated at a safe house, after being left without protection for over a week.

Last week, Justice Frank Seepersad ordered Gaspard to appear before him to clarify the status of criminal proceedings against six police officers charged with the 2011 murder of three Moruga friends, and when the trial is likely to begin.

Seepersad is hearing the judicial review claim filed by the State’s main witness against the six officers.

Monday’s hearing was heard in camera after the request was made by attorneys for the officers, who expressed concern over the limiting of pre-trial publicity.

The media were not allowed into the hearing, but Newsday understands Gaspard’s attorney Keston McQuilkin provided the court with the explanation sought.

Newsday also understands the criminal matter came up at a cause list hearing on Friday, but no date has yet been set for a trial, although it is likely to begin in April 2023.

At last week’s hearing, Seepersad said he was concerned about the “alarming state of affairs” the witness outlined in her injunction application.

He said the first was the decision to withdraw her security detail, “especially given the current climate as this country is now confronted with a ceaseless rise in crime and the year-to-date murder statistics are simply catastrophic.”

He also said he was concerned about how long the criminal case has been pending, since it involved “significant costs” to keep a witness in protective custody and provide 24-hour security for well over a decade.

Seepersad said one would have expected the matter would be prioritised and determined expeditiously.

“It is going on for far too long,” he said, adding, “It must also be a rather harrowing situation for any person who has to live under such conditions.”

Acknowledging delays in the criminal justice system, which he said were “intolerable,” Seepersad said this was why he wanted to know why the criminal case had not yet started.

There was also no update on the plea-deal discussions between the witnesses and the State, which have hit a snag, and are the subject of another lawsuit that the witness filed against the DPP. That matter is being heard by another judge and comes up for hearing in February.

At an earlier hearing, the witness’s attorney, Michael Rooplal, said his client was ready to plead.

In her lawsuit before Seepersad, the witness, also a police officer, who is in the custody of the Justice Protection Programme, said the security detail at the safe house where she has been for the past 11 years was removed on November 18. She complained there have been threats to her life, but the police have not been investigating them.

In the application, the officer said no reason was given for the security detail's removal and she had been left to fend for herself.

She also said although another judge granted an injunction on November 25 for the immediate reinstatement of a security detail, police officers only returned a day later. Seepersad has adjourned the matter to February 2.

Also last week, the Court of Appeal heard the appeal by the six officers, who were denied bail by a High Court judge in July. A decision in the appeal has been reserved.

The DPP is also represented by Senior Counsel Ian Benjamin.