Aracely Cahueque: if her name doesn't ring a bell what she was accused of surely will. Caheque is said to have been the master mind behind the October 2010 killing of 18 year old Raylene Dyer. The narrative is that Cahueque hired 3 men to kill Dyer so she could take her child. The men allegedly decapitated Dyer and threw her body in the Roaring Creek River. It was one of the most chilling murders in memory.
Well, the case went back before the court today with the DPP trying to appeal Cahueque's 2014 acquittal.
We'll tell you about that shortly, but first for some background: as we have reported, based on the strength of a confession, police had charged 21 year old Darren Banner, 20 year old Jason Anderson and 24 year old Brandon Budna. But they later walked from the charge of murder. As for Cahueque, she was also set free. That is because the statement from the prosecutor's key witness was ruled inadmissible.
That case pivoted on the statement from the cooperating witness Brandon Budna - and the DPP took the stand herself to explain that she used no force or threats and neither did she promise Budna anything if he were to give the statement against Cahueque.
In the trial without jury, Presiding Justice Hanomansingh had tough criticism for her calling her behaviour "unethical". He acquitted Cahueque.
That was four years ago, and today the DPP went ahead to appeal the case. Both sides presented their arguments and at lunch time the panel of judges said they would reserve judgment. We spoke to Anthony Sylvester who is representing Aracely Cahueque. Here is what he had to say after the case was heard.
Reporter
"This is the matter of the Queen versus Aracely Cahueque, it is an appeal of the ruling from the original trial judge more or less what is each side arguing in respect to this?"
Anthony Sylvester, Attorney
"So I was appointed by the court to represent Ms. Cahueque who isn't in the jurisdiction and the DPP brought an appeal against the acquittal, the contention of the DPP office was that the trial judge erroneously excluded evidence and the main source of their evidence for their trial so they brought an application for permission to appeal and as the court indicated just a while ago it reserved it's decision. The argument was that prohibited them from being able to properly put forward their case and one of the things that has to be satisfied by the DPP even if there was an error, there was a miscarriage of justice and their view that there was a miscarriage of justice."
We'll keep following this case.
Email
Print