A High Court judge has summoned the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to court 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.
Justice Frank Seepersad made the order on Tuesday, as he held a virtual hearing of a lawsuit filed by a witness in the case, who had to go to court for an injunction to get a security detail reinstated at a safe house after being left without protection for over a week.
The matter has been adjourned to December 12, when Seepersad was originally expected to hear the witness’s claim before he brought it forward.
Checks by Newsday show the criminal matter is expected to come up on a cause list on December 9, with no trial date set as yet.
Incidentally, on Monday, 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.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Seepersad said he recalled the matter because of concerns about the “alarming state of affairs” the witness outlined.
He said the first was the decision to withdraw the 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 there were delays in the criminal justice system, which he said were “intolerable,” Seepersad said they only served to undermine the public’s confidence in the efficacy of the administration of justice, and eroded the rule of law.
He said for this reason he wanted to know why the criminal case had not yet started.
Seepersad acknowledged that the delay could have been caused by the physical closure of courts during the covid19 pandemic, which put a halt to in-person trials. He also said there was no information on a “full reopening with unhindered in-person access forthcoming,” but expressed hope that with the recent appointment of 12 judges, the criminal courts will be “fully manned by judicial officers who are ready and rearing to tackle the significant backlog of criminal cases.”
Seepersad also asked the attorney for the state witness, Michael Rooplal, why the witness had not yet pleaded guilty to the lesser charge against her.
Rooplal told the judge the witness was “ready to plead.” However, some issues relating to the plea-deal discussions with the DPP have not yet been sorted out. That is the subject of another lawsuit that the witness against filed the DPP, which is being heard by another
