-accused had been on remand from age 17 for nearly six years
By Femi Harris Smith
A “travesty and an indictment upon the criminal justice system” was how Justice Sandil Kissoon described the incarceration of 22-year-old Marlon Garrett; who he lamented had spent nearly the last six years on remand awaiting trial for a murder the prosecution had no evidence to prove he committed.
Though hard-pressed to point the Court to the State’s evidence against the accused, an unrelenting Prosecutor Taneisha Saygon in a fervent bid to secure the prosecution a lifeline, sought to advance its reliance on Garrett’s caution statement (CS) which had been made to the police.
Justice Kissoon, was, however, swift to point out that the accused’s CS stated only that the then 17-year-old had acted in self-defence after first being attacked by the now-deceased, and further that he retaliated to protect his mother’s property.
The Judge then pointed out that self-defence is a complete defence. Added to that, he emphasized that neither self-defence nor the defence of property were crimes in law.
Referencing the very CS on which Saygon said the State was relying, Justice Kissoon then enquired “So where is the State’s evidence against this accused?”
After a brief pause as she perused the deposition, Saygon remained adamantly resolute that the State would rely on Garrette’s caution statement and the circumstances therein to prove its case, though she did say that the State had no “direct evidence” against him.
Pressing her again, however, Justice Kissoon then enquired whether the State was in possession of any independent evidence which could have operated to negative or rebut what the accused had said in his CS.
Clearly averse to conceding, an unyielding Saygon said that while the deceased had sustained a stab wound to his chest, to his heart, the accused himself had no injuries. Visibly astounded by this reasoning, the Judge enquired from Saygon whether such considerations formed the basis for proving the elements of the offence.
It was at this point that Justice Kissoon asked, seeming rhetorically, how it was that the accused had even been committed for trial in the first place, when the State had no evidence against him that disclosed criminal conduct.
Saygon who proceeded to provide a response, however, submitted that Garrett’s committal had been ordered by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) herself.
The Judge in response said that that was an affront to justice and highlights the “shortcomings and failures” in the prosecutorial arm of the State which not only results in “usurpation, arbitrary deprivation and violation of one of the most sacrosanct fundamental rights and freedoms,” that being to personal liberty, which he said is second only to the right to life.
This Justice Kissoon said has been the result in Garrett’s case, in the absence of even an iota of evidence; as persons are deprived of their freedom for lengthy periods, given that bail is not granted for murder.
Against this background, the Judge lamented the several cases in recent months which have seen murder accused being discharged for lack of evidence from the prosecution, which failed to prove its case against them.
Garrett, who had been originally indicted for murder, threw himself at the mercy of the Court just over a month ago, and pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter, which the Judge surmised may well have been a result of the young man’s frustration at being on remand for close to six years.
Following Garrett’s guilty plea, Justice Kissoon had deferred sentencing to first hear from probation and other social impact reports. When the matter was called yesterday at what should have been the sentencing-hearing, however, Justice Kissoon informed the court that after reviewing the factual circumstances of the case, he found no evidence implicating the accused for the manslaughter to which he had pleaded or even murder.
The Judge said it was on that basis of “evidential sufficiency” that he was invoking the Court’s supervisory power to enter a not guilty plea on behalf of the accused.
He then invited defence attorney Ravindra Mohabir, who made an application to quash the committal order on the basis that the State had failed to discharge its burden of establishing a prima facie case against his client.
During her submissions, Saygon had asked the Judge for an adjournment to be instructed on the way forward. Justice Kissoon, however, denied her request, stating that it was “unreasonable” since the accused had been deprived his liberty for almost six years, while noting that state counsel ought to be familiar with the case file in order to address the Court whenever the need arises.
In ordering that both the indictment and committal order against Garrett be quashed on the grounds of evidential insufficiency, Justice Kissoon also ordered his forthwith release from prison.
In addition, the judge said all further proceedings in relation to the indictable information against Garrett for the alleged murder be permanently stayed.
To Garrett who appeared visibly relieved after learning that instead of being sentenced, he would actually be going home; Justice Kissoon said; “Mr. Garrett, a grave injustice has been done to you Sir. I cannot undo what has been done. I could only attempt to expedite your release from prison.”
The Judge noted that the probation and prison reports which had been prepared for sentencing, were all a credit to the “continued good character” of the young man.
The capital charge against Garrett had been that on September 11th, 2016, at Robb and Bourda streets, Georgetown he unlawfully killed the then unidentified man.
Police would later identify the victim as Omesh Chateram.
The prosecution’s case had been that Chetram, who was described as a vagrant, was involved in an argument with the then 17-year-old Garrett, during which he was stabbed once in his abdomen.
He was then rushed to the Georgetown Public Hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
