RHON­DOR DOWLAT 

Se­nior Re­porter 

rhon­dor.dowlat@guardian.co.tt

A High Court judge has de­nied a pros­e­cu­tion re­quest to re­ly on pre­vi­ous­ly filed sub­mis­sions, fol­low­ing years of pro­ce­dur­al de­lays in a decade-old mur­der case. 

Randy Flem­ming, al­so known as “Sa­roop,” and Okachuk­wn Moyo, al­so called “Chanka Moyo,” are charged with the 2009 mur­der of Ja­son Fuller­ton, known lo­cal­ly as “Ras­ta Man” or “Fil­ly,” in Mara­bel­la on March 13, 2009.

Flem­ming and Moyo were charged in 2011 af­ter a pre­lim­i­nary in­quiry found suf­fi­cient ev­i­dence for tri­al.

The ini­tial tri­al, held be­tween No­vem­ber 2017 and Jan­u­ary 2018, end­ed with a hung ju­ry, ne­ces­si­tat­ing a re­tri­al. The pri­ma­ry ev­i­dence in the pros­e­cu­tion’s case was the state­ment of de­ceased wit­ness Ali­cia McKen­zie, al­leged­ly de­tail­ing the de­fen­dants’ in­volve­ment in Fuller­ton’s mur­der.

The pros­e­cu­tion sought to reuse this state­ment in the re­tri­al with­out re-fil­ing the nec­es­sary sec­tion 15C ap­pli­ca­tion, de­spite a court or­der to do so.

In 2021, a Crim­i­nal Court Mas­ter or­dered them to file fresh sub­mis­sions in­stead of re­ly­ing on those from the first tri­al. Be­tween 2021 and 2023, dead­lines were re­peat­ed­ly ex­tend­ed, but the ap­pli­ca­tions were nev­er sub­mit­ted. In Jan­u­ary 2023, the court is­sued a fi­nal warn­ing, de­clar­ing that no fur­ther ex­ten­sions would be grant­ed.

When the mat­ter came be­fore Jus­tice Sherene Mur­ray-Bai­ley in April 2024, the pros­e­cu­tion again re­quest­ed more time, claim­ing it was un­pre­pared due to un­avail­able wit­ness­es. The judge grant­ed an ex­ten­sion un­til May 29, 2024, with a clear di­rec­tive: fail­ure to com­ply with­out a rea­son­able ex­pla­na­tion would re­sult in ex­clu­sion of the ev­i­dence.

By the Ju­ly 5, 2024 hear­ing, the pros­e­cu­tion had not filed the ap­pli­ca­tions or pro­vid­ed any ex­pla­na­tion. The judge sub­se­quent­ly ruled that the pros­e­cu­tion would be barred from re­ly­ing on the ev­i­dence. On Jan­u­ary 31, 2025—just three days be­fore the tri­al—the pros­e­cu­tion filed an ap­pli­ca­tion to use the pre­vi­ous sub­mis­sions, ar­gu­ing that the court lacked statu­to­ry au­thor­i­ty to im­pose such sanc­tions. Pros­e­cu­tors con­tend­ed that ex­clud­ing the wit­ness state­ment would amount to ter­mi­nat­ing the tri­al pre­ma­ture­ly, un­der­min­ing pub­lic in­ter­est in jus­tice.

Jus­tice Mur­ray-Bai­ley dis­missed the ar­gu­ment, stat­ing that the Crim­i­nal Pro­ce­dure Rules ex­plic­it­ly em­pow­ered the court to im­pose con­se­quences for non-com­pli­ance.

“The pow­ers grant­ed to the court are clear, and they in­clude the au­thor­i­ty to spec­i­fy the con­se­quences of fail­ing to com­ply with di­rec­tions,” she said. “The pros­e­cu­tion has court­ed these con­se­quences through per­sis­tent non-com­pli­ance.”

Jus­tice Mur­ray-Bai­ley, de­liv­er­ing her rul­ing yes­ter­day, de­scribed the pros­e­cu­tion’s ap­proach as a “ta­pes­try of pro­cras­ti­na­tion” af­ter re­peat­ed fail­ures to com­ply with court or­ders.

With the pros­e­cu­tion now un­able to use key ev­i­dence from McKen­zie’s state­ment, the case faces chal­lenges, as McKen­zie’s tes­ti­mo­ny was cen­tral to link­ing the ac­cused to the crime.

De­fence at­tor­neys wel­comed the rul­ing, say­ing the pros­e­cu­tion’s per­sis­tent de­lays and dis­re­gard for court or­ders un­der­mined the de­fen­dants’ right to a fair tri­al.

“The pros­e­cu­tion had am­ple time and nu­mer­ous op­por­tu­ni­ties to fol­low prop­er pro­ce­dures,” said Flem­ming’s at­tor­ney Kevin Rati­ram.

“Jus­tice re­quires re­spect for the rule of law, not short­cuts.”

The pros­e­cu­tion was rep­re­sent­ed by at­tor­neys Sher­von Nor­ie­ga and Maria Lyons-Ed­wards. At­tor­ney Kevin Rati­ram ap­peared on be­half of the first ac­cused, Randy Flem­ming. Stephen Wil­son, in­struct­ed by Shaunelle Hamil­ton and Lau­ri­na Ramkaran, rep­re­sent­ed the sec­ond ac­cused, Okachuk­wn Moyo.