Wallerfield couple to face trial for drug trafficking despite 23 year delay

MORE than two decades after they were arrested, a Wallerfield couple will face their second trial for marijuana and cocaine trafficking in May 2025.

Justice Nalini Singh recently dismissed an abuse of process motion calling for a stay of an indictment against Dexter Brown and Nicha Outram. The charges against the couple date back to December 1999. The couple, married at the time, were arrested at their farm at Brazil Road. They were convicted at a trial in 2013 and sentenced to 18 years hard labour. In 2014, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial.

Brown sought a permanent stay of the indictment citing undue delays spanning 23 years, arguing that the protracted timeline undermined the integrity of the judicial process and caused significant prejudice to the accused.

His attorneys argued that the delay rendered a fair trial impossible, citing the loss of evidence and the death of a critical witness which, they said, prejudiced the accused by denying him an opportunity to mount the best possible defence. They also alleged there were delays in disclosing critical evidence which had hampered trial preparations.

In opposition to the application, the State’s attorneys pointed out that the accused frequently changed lawyers and often represented themselves, failed to comply with court orders and this contributed significantly to delays. They also maintained that documentary evidence remained intact and that trial mechanisms, including jury instructions and cross-examinations, can mitigate the impact of delays.

Singh meticulously analysed the case, considering constitutional, procedural, and common law principles and held that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to a speedy trial while noting that the defence failed to demonstrate "serious prejudice.”

She also pointed out that the delays affected both the prosecution and defence but assured there were procedural safeguards to address potential prejudice.

Singh also noted that while delays were significant, they did not render a fair trial impossible as the public interest in prosecuting severe drug offences outweighed prejudice claims.

“The law is clear that general prejudice such as the passage of time or inconvenience, is not enough to justify a stay of proceedings.

“For the court to intervene, the accused must show serious prejudice that renders a fair trial impossible. In this case, the accused has failed to demonstrate specific, concrete prejudice.”

She also recognised that “the realities of litigious life in Trinidad and Tobago is that institutional delay must be examined against a backdrop of the limited number of courts and judges available at any one time to hear matters.

“In this reality, capital cases are always given precedence over any other type of case on the list. The result is that matters such as drug cases – especially those where accused persons are out on bail – have to take their place in the queue to be attended to at the court’s earliest convenience.

“Our Court of Appeal has already made its observations regarding the state of ‘litigious life’ in Trinidad and Tobago and I am bound to bear that in mind when I come to assess the question of fairness.

“In so doing, I conclude that as untenable as the delay has been in this case, on account of the litigious landscape being what it was at the material time, it does not automatically mean that the accused will suffer serious prejudice to the extent that no fair trial can be held.

“Although the delay, in this case, is significant, I cannot see that the delay has led the accused to suffer prejudice to the extent that no fair trial can take place.”

Brown was represented by Andrew Sharp and Sephra Alexander while Karunaa Bisramsingh represented Outram. The State was represented by Norma Peters, Keston Abraham and Teriq Smith who relied on submissions advanced by former prosecutor Shabanna Shah.