Magistrate Sets Deadline for Disclosure in Two-Year-Old Murder Case

A magistrate has given the State until early next month to deliver partial disclosure of its two-year-old case against a murder accused — or the “matter gone ‘long”.

Magistrate Angela Knight on Tuesday gave the prosecution September 10 as a final adjourned date in the case after attorney-at-law Shadia Simpson argued — for the second time in as many months — that the case against her client Rackesh Kishmar Grant of Rogers Road, Grazettes be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The defence attorney making her submissions in the District ‘A’ Magistrates’ Court pointed out that she made a similar argument in May for Grant who is accused of murdering Dory Herbert on March 5, 2022 after the prosecution informed the court that the file on the matter had been sent off to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to be vetted.

“Three months later, we are not hearing anything new,” Simpson submitted. “We are hearing that the file is still with the DPP’s office. I don’t know what that means for Mr Grant in terms of disclosure being served. The court gave certain directions to the prosecution and we came here with certain expectations that at least partial disclosure would have been served . . . [to show] at least there is some movement with this matter.”

The lawyer argued that if the police charged an individual and put them before the court “then be prepared to prosecute the matter. I understand the police service at some point in time has limited resources, but two years and we can’t even get a shred of paper in this matter . . . While this man sits in prison hoping and waiting every 28 days . . . [only to hear] the file with the DPP, getting reviewed, getting vetted”.

Simpson added: “I am respectfully asking this court to dismiss this matter for want of prosecution”.

The lawyer further argued that in indictable matters there “is no prejudice” to the prosecution because they can re-lodge a charge against the accused “meanwhile he wouldn’t be deprived of his liberty.”

She continued: “We have asked for a dismissal. . . . I know it is a tall ask because of the type of matter but until we start making examples at this level, and we start [taking] the accused’s rights to a fair trial at this level [seriously] even at this stage then the circumstances will continue to prevail.”

In response, Sergeant Verdon Forde maintained the prosecution’s submissions made at the last sitting. He reiterated that he received instructions from his superiors that the case file was before the DPP.

Taking into consideration the seriousness of the charge, Magistrate Knight pointed out that her issue was there was currently no disclosure before the court.

“I don’t have anything to go on,” she said. “September 10, or the matter gone ‘long. Final adjourned date prosecution for partial disclosure, that’s the minimum standard now.”

The magistrate added: “Partial disclosure got to come. It got to come! I know it takes time . . . I know that there is not enough of anybody but at least somebody . . . . can tell me they are working on it, it is on their desk . . . that’s what I like: accountability, transparency.