DPP appeals acquittal of Lusignan massacre accused

-says defence lawyer, jury foreman failed to disclose relationship

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has appealed the recent acquittals in the Lusignan massacre trial, saying that the lawyer for one of the two accused and the jury foreman both failed to disclose a six-year attorney-client relationship.

The trial, which concluded on August 2, resulted in James Anthony Hyles, called ‘Sally’ and Mark Royden Williams, called ‘Smallie,’ being found not guilty by the jury on 11 counts of murder.

The DPP said in its appeal, which was filed yesterday, that attorney Nigel Hughes, who represented Hyles, failed to disclose to trial judge Navindra Singh that he had represented the foreman, Vernon Griffith, in a civil case for a period of six years starting in 2002. The DPP said Griffith also failed to disclose their previous relationship, which it says constitutes a “material irregularity.”

The case, 806-W 2002 – Vernon Griffith – vs. – N.B.I.C, was concluded on October 29, 2008, before the acting Chief Justice Ian Chang.

According to the appeal, the non-disclosure by Hughes and Griffith “is material and significant given the fact that at the commencement of the trial on the 15 July, 2013, before the jury was selected and empanelled, the learned trial judge specifically called out the names of all the attorneys involved in the case and told the entire panel that if they know or are associated with any of the attorneys, they ought to so indicate and would be excused.”
Hughes and Griffith remained silent, the appeal states.

The DDP also notes that prospective jurors, including Griffith, were questioned at length by both defence attorneys prior to the selection of the final 12 jurors and says that while many were challenged for cause, Griffith was not.

James Anthony Hyles
James Anthony Hyles
Mark Royden Williams
Mark Royden Williams

In addition, the DPP is contending that when the final 12 were sworn in and the registrar told them to consult amongst themselves and choose a foreperson, “without hesitation or without consultation with the others, Mr Griffith, who was in the number three position, immediately got up and took the foreman’s position at number one.”

The appeal says the “fiduciary relationship” between Hughes and Griffith was brought to Justice Singh’s attention immediately after the verdict by Nujomo Bryan, a clerk attached to the Chief Justice’s (CJ) office, and Sergeant Wishart, Court Orderly attached to the CJ’s office. Wishart and Bryan informed Justice Singh that they recognised Griffith as one of Hughes’ clients.

The DPP also contends that the trial judge erred during the conduct of the trial and in the granting of bail to Hyles after his acquittal.

The appeal says Justice Singh erred in law when he acceded to an application made by Hughes for a voir dire (trial within a trial) to be held to allow for prospective jurors to be questioned to ascertain whether they had a particular bias, when there was no provision in law  to allow for this.

It adds that the judge also failed to ascertain whether there was a relationship between the number 12 juror, Compton Elgin, and Hyles despite the fact that a complaint was made by Senior State Counsel Judith Gildharie-Mursalin, who led the prosecution, in the presence of Hughes and Williams’ attorney, Roger Yearwood.

According to the appeal, Elgin was seen in conversation with a man to whom he showed the thumbs up sign with both hands. “That man was subsequently identified as the father of the number two accused (Hyles),” the appeal says.

It also argues that Justice Singh further erred in law when he granted bail to Hyles following the not guilty verdicts and the state’s service of its Notice of Intention to Appeal both orally and in writing.

“There was further irregularity in that the Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he recalled his order granting bail to the number two accused (Hyles) and discharged him from custody in contravention of Section 33C of the Court of Appeal Act, Chapter 3:01 as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Act, No. 4 of 2010 by interpreting an ‘Appeal’ to exclude a ‘Notice of Intention to Appeal,’” it adds

The appeal also states that the judge erred when he excluded 76 photographs depicting the crime scene and the victims on the ground that the prosecution sought to enter as evidence, on the basis that they would evoke emotional response in the jury.

Hyles and Williams were accused of killing 48-year-old Clarence Thomas, his 12-year-old daughter Vanessa Thomas and his son Ron Thomas; 32-year-old Mohandai Gourdat and her two sons, four-year-old Seegobind Harrilall and ten-year-old Seegopaul Harrilall; 22-year-old Shazam Mohamed; 55-yearold Shaleem Ba

ksh; Seecharran Rooplall, 56, his wife Dhanrajie Ramsingh, 52 and their 11-year-old daughter Raywattie Ramsingh, on January 26, 2008 at Track ‘A’ Lusignan, where gunmen stormed the homes of the victims in the wee hours of the morning and began shooting.