Attorney Basil Williams in the High Court on Thursday levelled accusations against a state prosecutor and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) over his client’s case not being called but this outburst had the reverse result as the sitting judge, after reprimanding Williams, agreed with the prosecutor that his argument would have prejudiced the jury.
Williams’ statements, made in the presence of the panel of jurors who have been selected to serve during this session of the Demerara Assizes, came after the court was called to order to empanel a jury for the trial of Shawn Richardson. The attorney said the prosecution had undertaken that the trial of his client, Quincie McLennon, would have been the next one to be heard by the court. He labelled the continued incarceration and delay of McLennon’s trial as a breach of his constitutional rights.
Last May, McLennon and Trion Sumner were freed of the January 9, 2004 charge of murdering Odingo Dungham at Buxton, East Coast Demerara. Williams had defended both men and had contended before Justice Roxane George that their constitutional rights were being violated. McLennon, who had been incarcerated since 2004, was not freed owing to a pending indictment which his attorney insists should have been next on the list.
On Thursday, when Justice Winston Patterson took the bench, Williams requested permission to address the court. Williams reminded the court that last year Justice George had ordered that an early trial be conducted for McLennon with regard to the pending indictment. However, the attorney stressed that to date this has not been done.
During a discussion between himself, State Prosecutor Judith Gildharie-Mursalin and Justice Patterson, Williams said the state had undertaken to see that McLennon’s trial would be the second to be heard in the courtroom. When Mursalin attempted to object to his statement, the attorney said: “Shut up. Shut up and sit down. I am on my legs… “He also levelled other remarks at Mursalin.
Williams went on to tell the judge that the case against McLennon would be dismissed because there is no evidence against him and described details of the case. The DPP, through its prosecutor, Williams said, is in breach of Article 144 (1) of the Constitution, which guarantees a speedy trial before a fair and impartial court. The article, the attorney stressed, has been contravened and the accused has been the longest in waiting. The court, Williams said, should proceed with McLennon’s case or grant him bail.
In response, the prosecutor told the court that she had never undertaken to present the McLennon case before the court in space of the Richardson trial.
Mursalin further said that if the defence attorney is concerned about his client’s constitutional right being contravened, then he should file a constitutional motion. She added that Richardson was incarcerated before McLennon.
Williams’ submission, she stressed, not only creates prejudice for the accused but for the prosecution as well. In the interest of a fair trial, Mursalin stated, McLennon’s trial cannot be heard by any member of the current panel of jurors.
Justice Patterson informed Williams that he would not tolerate him referring to the prosecutor as “she,” as he had been doing, and noted that the ethics and standards of the profession have to be upheld. The judge further stated that the objections of the prosecution had been noted and the court acknowledged that no undertaking was given with regard to the McLennon case.
The judge further refused the bail application submitted by Williams and said that in light of all that had transpired in the court the McLennon trial could not be heard by the current panel in this session.
Following this string of events on Thursday, Mursalin submitted formal complaints to the DPP and Chief Justice Ian Chang.
In-chamber discussions were then conducted with the prosecution team, the judge and defence attorney in the Richardson matter, Clarissa Riehl.
After the discussion, Justice Patterson discharged the jury from hearing the Richardson trial. He informed the jury that due to Williams’ conduct and statements on Thursday, “the prosecution team as presently comprised would not be duly composed in presenting the case.”
In light of Williams’ outburst against Mursalin in front of the jurors, for the remainder of the session, the cases being prosecuted by her and her colleague Konyo Sandiford will be heard in the courtroom of Justice Dawn Gregory-Barnes and in the presence of the panel of jurors assigned to that court.
