In­dar­jit Seu­raj

An "er­ror" by for­mer judge Her­bert Vol­ney when he con­duct­ed a mur­der tri­al last year has caused the Court of Ap­peal to quash the con­vic­tion against two men and or­der a re­tri­al. It would now cost the State ex­tra ex­pense to put the ac­cused through an­oth­er tri­al. With an al­ready long list of pris­on­ers await­ing tri­al, the ap­pel­lants, Col­in Edghill, 35, and Mar­cus Mar­shall, 29, who were sent to Death Row in 2009, will re­main in cus­tody for sev­er­al months be­fore the start of a new tri­al. The rul­ing by the Court of Ap­peal comes, iron­i­cal­ly, just one week af­ter Vol­ney–now Min­is­ter of Jus­tice–launched a scathing at­tack against Chief Jus­tice and Ap­peal Court pres­i­dent Ivor Archie.

Dur­ing his con­tri­bu­tion in the 2010/2011 bud­get de­bate, Vol­ney ac­cused the Court of Ap­peal of fail­ing to "de­liv­er ap­peals" (de­ci­sions). At the Court of Ap­peal yes­ter­day, Jus­tice Paula Mae Weekes said Vol­ney had erred in law when he dis­charged one ju­ry and se­lect­ed an­oth­er in the tri­al against the men. Dana See­ta­hal, SC, and Haseen Shaikh ap­peared for Edghill, while Jagdeo Singh rep­re­sent­ed Mar­shall. The ap­pel­lants were on tri­al for the mur­der of busi­ness­man Rus­sell Govia and on June 15, 2009 Vol­ney heard a voi dire (tri­al with­in a tri­al) to de­ter­mine the ad­mis­si­bil­i­ty of an in­cul­pa­to­ry state­ment. Two days lat­er, he dis­charged the ju­ry which was al­ready em­pan­elled to hear the tri­al. On Ju­ly 1, he em­pan­elled a new ju­ry and start­ed the tri­al. He did not con­duct a new voi dire.

The ac­cused were con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death on Ju­ly 25 that year. Yes­ter­day, lead­ing a pan­el, which in­clud­ed Jus­tices Ra­jen­dra Nar­ine and Al­ice Yorke-Soo Hon, Weekes said Vol­ney act­ed as if he was "sim­ply con­tin­u­ing the tri­al." She said it was a "ma­te­r­i­al ir­reg­u­lar­i­ty" at the tri­al, which had caused "ir­repara­ble dam­age." She added the ap­pel­lants were not ad­vised of their right to have the voi dire heard again. They nei­ther waived that right, she said. See­ta­hal had con­tend­ed that be­cause Vol­ney ef­fec­tive­ly had two ju­ries em­pan­elled for the tri­al, this was a "fun­da­men­tal and ma­te­r­i­al ir­reg­u­lar­i­ty". She added that the tri­al judge erred when he de­prived the ap­pel­lant's right to a fresh voi dire. Re­spond­ing for the State, Joan Hon­ore-Paul ar­gued that the er­ror caused no prej­u­dice to the ac­cused at the tri­al.