The prosecution was yesterday forced to close its case in the trial of Keith Ferrier, one of the accused in the 2009 arson of the Ministry of Health building at Brickdam, due to the non-appearance of some 19 witnesses.
As a result, Ferrier’s attorney yesterday made a no-case submission and called for the charge against the man to be dismissed.
Ferrier was charged on July 30, 2009 with unlawfully and maliciously setting fire to the Ministry of Health building but had fled the jurisdiction after being released on $350,000 bail. He was recaptured this year.
During yesterday’s court proceedings before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan, Prosecutor Neville Jeffers called on Chief Electrical Inspector at the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Roland Bartley to give evidence.
In Bartley’s testimony, he told the court that on July 17, 2009, he went to the Ministry of Health compound on Brickdam and examined the debris to see if there was any indication that the fire was as a result of an electric fault.
The court heard that after the examination of the debris was completed, it was found that there was no indication that the fire was electrical in nature.
Subsequent to Bartley’s testimony, the prosecutor indicated that there were a total of 19 witnesses remaining, none of whom were present in court.
Prosecutor Jeffers stated that radio messages had been sent to the remaining witnesses and requested another opportunity to get into contact with them.
This request was objected to by the defendant’s attorney, Patrice Henry, who stated that the prosecution would have had sufficient time to produce the other witnesses and had failed to do so.
Chief Magistrate McLennan then ordered the prosecution to close its case, while stating that radio messages and summons would have been sent for the remaining witnesses and they had yet to appear in court.
With the closure of the prosecution’s case, Henry stated in his closing statements that the prosecution had failed to produce any evidence that would link his client to the allegation levelled against him.
He added that the matter ought to be dismissed for insufficient evidence.
The prosecution nonetheless remained adamant that a case had been made out against the defendant, while citing the evidence that would have been presented by the varying witnesses.
The Chief Magistrate subsequently adjourned the matter to July 26 for decision.
