Defence lawyer says: New evidence would have freed Sankeralli
By FULTON WILSON
JOSEPH Pantor, who represented executed murderer Russell Sankeralli at the Dole Chadee trial, said yesterday that he would have called Major General Ralph Brown as a witness and Sankeralli would have been freed on a "no case" submission. The day before Sankeralli's execution on June 5, Brown revealed a recording of a statement murdered State witness Clint Huggins made to him while he (Huggins) was in protective custody. In the recording, Huggins said that Ramkalawan Singh who was also executed and Sankeralli "were not really linked to the whole thing". He also said that both men drove cars to pick the gang up but Sankeralli "did not go and partake in anything". Huggins was murdered before he could give evidence and his deposition was read into evidence. Speaking on the basis that he had not heard the recording but had read its alleged contents in the newspapers, Pantor told the Express the impact of the new evidence would have prevented Huggins' deposition from being admitted into evidence against Sankeralli. He said he would have called Brown whom he described as "an outstanding citizen of the country" to establish that Huggins' account on the deposition was not complete and clear. He added that since there was no opportunity to cross-examine Huggins at the trial, he was certain that "we would have gotten a ruling that the deposition of Huggins could not have been used against Sankeralli". The "no case" submission Pantor said he made at the trial on Sankeralli's behalf was based on Huggins' deposition and murderer turned State witness Levi Morris' testimony. "In so far as Sankeralli is concerned, that 'no case' submission would have been irrefutable and would have had to have been accepted if Brown had testified that Huggins had limited the participation of Sankeralli. In any event, the jury would have been left with the version of Morris on the one hand and Huggins' version of Sankeralli's limited participation on the other," he said. The concealment of the evidence, he said, denied Sankeralli the opportunity to cross-examine Morris as to his (Sankeralli's) participation in the murders even though Sankeralli had maintained that he took no part at all. After reading the reports in the Express, Pantor said he made a formal enquiry to prosecutor and English QC Timothy Cassel yesterday in an attempt to find out where the tape was, who had it and why it was concealed. "When I get a response from Cassel, I would move one step further to address what I consider to be a fatal omission by the prosecution in not disclosing that tape to the defence. When I say fatal I mean fatal since a man has been executed," he said. Pantor emphasised that the prosecution had been asked to disclose all matters that may be relevant to conducting the defence of Sankeralli. "It should have been done even without request because it is normal prosecutorial practice." Throughout the trial, he said Sankeralli's defence was that he was not there at Williamsville and more particularly he was not driving any car or taking any part in the murders whatsoever. Sankeralli chose not to give evidence and that was his right but it was also his right that the prosecution disclose anything in his favour, Pantor said. Pantor said he had been constrained to make any statements in relation to Sankeralli before yesterday because of the lawyer/client relationship. That, he said, no longer existed. Ramkalawan Singh's trial attorney Vernon De Lima said he was unable to say anything constructive about the matter "until such time as I am permitted to hear the tape".
EXECUTED murderer Russell Sankeralli should have been granted a stay of execution while a court determined the value of the evidence of a recording made by murdered witness Clint Huggins to Major General Ralph Brown on the Baboolal murders in 1994. This is the view of the executive of the Criminal Bar Association which issued a statement yesterday in response to an exclusive story in last Sunday's Express which revealed the existence of the tape recording. In the recording, Huggins said that Ramkalawan Singh, who was also executed, and Sankeralli "were not really linked to the whole thing". He also said that both men drove cars to pick the gang up but Sankeralli "did not go and partake in anything". The association said the State had a duty to provide Huggins' recorded statement to the defence in the Dole Chadee murder trial even if it felt the statements were not adverse to Sankeralli. The association said its concerns about the revelation were heightened by a statement made by DPP Mark Mohammed who said on Sunday that Huggins' description of the involvement of Singh and Sankeralli was entirely consistent with what the State's case was against both men. But the association said due process of law and Sankeralli's right to a fair trial demanded that the jury be allowed to adjudicate on all the evidence available and not what the State decided that they ought to know. "Therefore it was the province of the jury to decide if Mr Sankeralli was guilty and not for the DPP's office or the State to decide it for the jury," it added. Once the State became aware of the existence of the tape recording, it said the due process of the law with regard to fresh evidence mandated the Attorney General and the DPP to place that evidence before a court so that a judicial body could determine the value of the evidence. "Consequently, in order to allow that process to take place Mr Sankeralli's execution ought to have been stayed." Referring to the DPP's disclosure that Prime Minister Basdeo Panday and Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj were part of a meeting which took the decision that there was nothing inconsistent in the tape with the State's case against the men, the association said, "If the DPP's statement is correct, it was certainly not within the province of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General and the DPP in a meeting in Parliament to act as a quasi judicial body in a matter of such importance." The association referred to a recent pronouncement by Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide who said in the murder appeal of Winston Solomon: "I do not think that in the circumstances of this case, the State can claim to be excused on the ground that the material in question was not in the possession of those in charge of the prosecution." The association said where a person who had possession of the undisclosed evidence knew of the pending prosecution, that person should appreciate the relevance of the material irregularity of which the aggrieved person was entitled to complain, if it caused him prejudice. The association said its president Theodore Guerra SC did not consider it appropriate to make any comment as he was part of the prosecution team in the Chadee trial. -Fulton Wilson
PRIME Minister Basdeo Panday, Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, National Security Minister Joseph Theodore and Director of Public Prosecutions Mark Mohammed, should not have sat as judge and jury over the evidence presented to them in the Clint Huggins tape. This view was expressed yesterday by attorney Nizam Mohammed on the TV6 programme Morning Edition, on the Huggins interview which claimed that Russell Sankeralli was innocent of the Baboolal family murders. Mohammed was responding to questions from new hostess Josanne Leonard, who raised the Huggins tape issue in relation to Sankeralli's hanging. Following an Express exclusive story on Sunday, the DPP issued a statement that he, Panday, Maharaj and Theodore ruled out the statement made by Huggins in a taped interview with retired Major General Ralph Brown, as not vital enough to stop Sankeralli's hanging the following day. Nizam Mohammed was of the view that the foursome could not sit as judge and jury on a piece of evidence that was never disclosed to Sankeralli's attorneys, or raised at his trial and which might well have exonerated his client. "The tape is vital evidence that was not put before a jury. It was not something the DPP and other officials could sit on and decide. They must put the evidence, all the evidence, before the jury," Mohammed contended. He called on DPP Mohammed to make the taped interview public. Mohammed said the new evidence suggested that Sankeralli was "deprived of his life without due process. The tape is vital evidence and could have given the jury the opportunity to hear a new aspect of the case that could have led to his acquittal." The slightest bit of doubt in the minds of the jury could have set his client free, he said. 
|