Senior Reporter
jensen.lavende@guardian.co.tt
A man accused of murdering a taxi driver two years ago, was freed after High Court Judge Nalini Singh found that the State’s evidence against him was insufficient.
In her 53-page ruling, Singh found that Keston Doughty should be freed even before a trial begins for the murder of Anthony Andrews.
Doughty and another man were charged with killing Andrews, 60, a Pleasantville taxi driver who was shot dead by men pretending to be passengers on March 20, 2023. Andrews fought with the gun-toting bandits, who took his car and left him to die along Parakeet Boulevard, less than two kilometres away from his Freedom Street home.
Singh said the sole evidence linking Doughty to the killing was CCTV footage, which, according to WPC James-Ragoonanan, depicted an individual she recognised as Doughty entering Andrews’ car at approximately 7.20 pm.
Further footage showed another man entering the vehicle later, who was robbed of $3,000 and an iPhone Pro worth $7,000.
Singh, in her conclusion, said, “In the present case, the sole evidence connecting the accused to the offence is the assertion of recognition from video footage that is not ‘sufficiently clear’, made by a witness who has failed to provide prima facie proof that she knew the accused ‘sufficiently well’.”
She added that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative had it been determined as admissible evidence. She said the case was a shoo-in to be deemed an “exceptional case” where judges may and should scrutinise depositions to prevent a trial on an unsustainable evidential basis.
The decision came after defence attorneys Shane Patience and Shaunelle Hamilton, of the Public Defenders Department, brought a no-case submission before the start of the trial. The attorneys successfully argued that the quality of the recording was poor and that the identifying officer had no clear description of facial features and no corroborating evidence supporting that it was Doughty who entered the car. It was the officer’s claim that she knew him from a previous investigation into an unrelated robbery.
Singh stated that in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1 establishes that criminal cases be dealt with justly and include fairness to both prosecution and defence, protection of the rights of the accused, and ensuring that proceedings are conducted efficiently, expeditiously, and proportionately.
She stated, “WPC James-Ragoonanan’s familiarity with the accused is not an issue, but the imagery upon which her recognition depends is blurred and indistinct. There are no moments of clarity, no distinctive clothing features, and no corroborative strands of circumstantial evidence. The CCTV footage is blurred and indistinct, so it is not “sufficiently clear.
“To allow such material to be placed before the jury would be to abdicate the very filtering role described in these cases. This identification evidence is therefore inadmissible, as it fails to meet the criteria for admissibility.”
Singh said based on that, she was forced to dismiss the matter.
Maria Lyons-Edwards represented the State.
