Finding that he did not have a fair trial, but in the same vein that the prosecution’s case against him appears strong, the Guyana Court of Appeal has ordered that rape accused, Julius Brunker, face a fresh trial.
This was the court’s ruling yesterday to an appeal Brunker had filed, in which he challenged both his conviction and 40-year sentence, arguing that the judge who conducted his trial did not do so fairly.
Allowing Brunker’s appeal, the appellate court found that indeed he had not been given a fair trial—as prejudicial evidence was led against him—and his defence of alibi had not been adequately put to the jury.
Acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud agreed that those deficiencies resulted in Brunker’s conviction being unsafe.
Finding also, however, the State’s case against the Appellant being seemingly strong, the Court of Appeal has ordered that he be retried.
Brunker, now 45, had been unanimously convicted by a jury back in 2018 for breaking into a woman’s home in the wee hours of February 15th, 2014, and raping her at knife-point.
Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall who presided over his trial had sentenced him to 40 years in prison, with the order that he was not to be considered eligible for parole before serving a minimum of 35 years.
In the appeal he would subsequently file, Brunker argued not only that the sentence was excessive; but that the judge erred in law by admitting evidence which was prejudicial to him, and also by not adequately, or at all putting his defence of alibi to the jury.
In the decision yesterday, Chancellor Cummings-Edwards read the Court’s finding that the trial judge had indeed admitted prejudicial evidence by allowing the complainant to testify that she in-part was able to identify Brunker as her alleged attacker, after previously seeing him on the television programme, “Court Round-up.”
The Chancellor said that given the nature of that programme which is commonly known for airing news of persons convicted of; and alleged to have committed offences, the trial Judge ought to have specifically directed the jury on how to assess that bit of evidence.
The Chancellor said that notwithstanding the virtual complainant did also testify of otherwise knowing Brunker from the Linden community, the evidence of the television programme could nonetheless have prejudiced the mind of the jury, which may have perceived that the persons featured on that programme are not of good character.
For that reason, the appellate court said that a warning was needed from Justice Morris- Ramlall to the jury on how it specifically needed to treat with that issue; while stating that the duty of the trial judge is to oversee a fair trial, and ensure that evidence bearing no probative value is admitted.
This the Chancellor said, is needed to ensure that the jury has a “dispassionate” view of the evidence before it.
The appellate court found that the trial judge did err in so ensuring.
Meanwhile, regarding his other ground of appeal, the appellate court found that Justice Morris-Ramlall had also erred in her duty to adequately put Brunker’s defence to the jury.
On this point the Chancellor noted the trial judge erred in not allowing the accused adequate time to summon the witnesses he wanted to call in his defence—which according to him—was that he was not present in the area where the alleged rape is said to have occurred.
Referencing the record of appeal, the Chancellor noted the trial judge not allowing Brunker’s attorney the time requested to secure a log book from the Mabura Police Outpost, which was intended to show that he was nowhere at the alleged rape scene.
The Court of Appeal underscored the trial judge’s remarks of not seeing how the log book would have assisted the accused, and her desire of not wanting to “protract” the trial; amounted to his attorney being hindered in providing adequate representation.
These, the court heard, all militated against the accused having a fair trial; even as the Chancellor emphasized after referencing case law precedent, that an accused-person’s defence must be adequately put to the jury in a fair and balanced manner, irrespective of how strong or weak a trial judge may perceive it to be.
Noting that the trial judge is tasked with ensuring the overall justice of the matter, Chancellor Cummings-Edwards said the Court found error in this regard, as the issue of alibi “loomed large.”
In ordering the retrial, the Chancellor said the Court found that the State’s case against the accused was strong; even as she lamented the seriousness and prevalence of sexual offences.
The Court has ordered that the accused be retried in the next practicable sitting of the Demerara criminal assizes.
Brunker was represented by attorney Adrian Thompson who attempted to make an application for bail, but which was promptly denied by the Chancellor who cautioned that the appellate court had gone as far as it needed in dealing with the matter and that he can take his request back to the High Court.
Representing the State’s interest before the appeal court was senior state counsel Mercedes Glasford.
