Email

Print

Here's the grounds of appeal that his attorney presented to the CCJ, chief among them, being that he ought not to have been convicted based on a written statement from a witnesses who had to be treated as hostile:

Anthony Sylvestre, Attorney
"The applicant wages three counts of appeal which, we respectfully say, establishes that there was a miscarriage of justice in the trial of the applicant in the Supreme Court. There is also an appeal with respect to sentence. It is our respectful submission that the witness statement which was admitted into evidence, our respectful submission is that that statement ought to have been excluded. The admission of the statement into evidence through assistant superintendent Susette Anderson- and this is found at page 146 of the record- was erroneous and prejudicial to the accused and it put the accused at an unfair disadvantage. Marlon Milton deposes on this statement that he was riding a bicycle at about 8:40 pm on Central American Boulevard when he heard three gunshots. Just at that junction of Banak Street, 'I saw a male person was lying down on the sidewalk on the same right-hand side of the Boulevard on this junction with Banak Street and at the same time I saw that there was another male person who was standing over this male person who was lying on the sidewalk." The witness as we have witnessed had repudiated the statement so that it was impracticable, it was not possible for him to be cross-examined in terms of those material details. So that, the applicant would have lost a benefit, would have been placed at an unfair disadvantage because of that, through no fault of his. There is no indication as to why the witness repudiated the statement. There is nothing in the evidence that lends and influences to one view or the other. So, that being the state of affairs, we respectfully submit that in the circumstances that it would have been incumbent on the learned trial judge to have exercised his discretion to exclude the statement. If that statement would have been properly excluded, what would have happened is that there would not be any evidence to ground the conviction. And so that, in the circumstances a submission of 'no-case-to-answer' ought to have been upheld."

But, while Bennett's attorney criticized the trial as unfair because the witness' credibility was called into question for changing his story on the stand, DDP Cheryl-Lynn Vidal found herself trying to get the judges of the CCJ to come to terms with a grim reality in Belize. She tried to impress upon them that it is a regular occurrence where witnesses give very convincing written statements to police, in which the killers are named and identified. Then, they show up to court for testimony, and they either recant, or completely deny that the made it, most likely out of fear of their own lives.

That then causes the prosecution against accused murderers to fall apart, and they go free. Here's how she tried to convince them that Bennett's conviction is safe:

Cheryl-Lynn Vidal, SC - Director of Public Prosecutions
"This witness actually said that he heard the gunshots, he reasoned the direction from which the gunshots would have been coming from and he rode towards the sound of the gunshots. This was not a person who heard gunshots, realized that there was some danger afoot and so decided to stay away. This was a person who road towards the sound of a gunshot, then saw a person lying on the ground, saw an individual standing over him with a firearm and continued to look. He was able to go on to see not only the clothes that were being worn, not only the description of the handgun, the hand in which it was being held but also when that individual moved from over the body, got unto a bicycle and then rode away from the body and joined another person. And then he was able to see as well the direction in which they went."

CCJ Judge
"Of course if it was true that he saw the person and if it was true that he recognized him, we have to assume that."

Cheryl-Lynn Vidal, SC - Director of Public Prosecutions
"Yes, and that was a question of fact for the jury and the jury clearly concluded from the evidence coming from that statement, that he did, in fact, see the face of the person who was holding the firearm and was able to recognize him. The essence of section 73 e, which is to enable the crown to tender into evidence a previous inconsistent statement, is that the person called by the crown as a witness has become adverse; so that that person is not testifying in accordance with the statement. So it will be a feature of every place in which this procedure is being followed that there is a conflict between what is being said in the stand and what would have been stated in the written statement. The process that is followed enables the crown for the witness to be treated as adverse so as to cross-examine the witness. That does not then bar the defense from cross-examining the same witness. When what should have been an examination in chief has been concluded then there is an opportunity for the defense to cross-examine which is not that that opportunity is denied."

The court has reserved judgment to be announced shortly. Interestingly enough, today's teleconference hearing was our first opportunity to see Justice Denys Barrow in action as a judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice. He had a very lively back and forth with DPP Cheryl-Lynn Vidal, challenging her to justify her submissions.