Attorneys for the schoolgirl accused of setting the fire to the Mahdia School Dormitory on May 21, which claimed the lives of 20 children; are contending that there is no evidence to support the murder charges she faces.
Against this background, they are calling for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to review the matter against their client with the aim of having all the charges against her withdrawn.
In a letter dated August 3rd, 2023 to DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack SC, lead attorney on the case, Dexter Todd, signalled his intention to proceed with civil action if the DPP fails to withdraw the charges.
In the letter released to the press, Todd said that the offence of murder requires two elements to be proved—the actus reus (the physical element)—and the mens rea (the mental element).
However, in the case against their 15-year-old client, Todd said that there is only circumstantial evidence; which he said is “weak circumstantial evidence at most.”
Referencing testimonies from witnesses in the matter, Todd said that some of them have claimed that the teen was annoyed with the ‘dorm mother’ for taking her cell phone away; and resultantly said that she would burn the dorm down.
Todd said, however, that this was not sufficient to charge someone with murder; even as he added, “not without further evidence beside mere words from the mouth of a teenager.”
He said that in fact, one of the witnesses indicated that the now-accused teen, after saying that she will burn the dorm down, also stated that “it was a joke.”
“We certainly cannot get into the mind of our client to know what she meant nor if it was a joke, and neither can the Court,” Todd said in his letter to Ali-Hack.
He then went on to say that none of the witnesses placed their client in the area where the fire started, nor did any of them say that they saw her light the fire, heard her accepting responsibility for the fire; or otherwise saw her walking or running from the area where the fire allegedly started prior to the great blaze.
Todd told the DPP also, that there is no forensic evidence in any form which incriminates the teen; but rather that the only pieces of evidence which can be adduced from all the statements to the detriment of their client, are witnesses “saying that she said she will burn the dorm down, that she collected a lighter from a student, and that she collected a perfume from another student.”
Todd advances that there is no possibility of fulfilling the physical element of murder in any way.
Meanwhile, citing case law authority, the attorney said that the mental element for murder is intention and highlights that intention did not just mean an intention to kill but the intention to cause harm or the actions were likely to cause harm.
In the case against his young client, Todd said “there is not even a fragment of evidence of such intent and intent cannot be assumed.” “The only thing before us is an alleged statement by the accused, a statement that could have been capitalized on by any person who heard it,” he added.
Todd said that conversely, even if circumstantial evidence was to be considered, the prosecution would be unable to meet the threshold required to classify evidence as circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence works cumulatively he said, in geometrical progression, eliminating other possibilities.
That, he said, is the not the case in the matter against his client.
In the letter signed by Todd to the DPP, he said “we would like to unambiguously state that we will make no attempt to do your job or overstep our boundaries as defence counsel. We respect your role and hold it in the highest regard.”
He continued, “We also have the highest level of confidence in your judgment in deciding when one should or should not be charged.”
Todd said it is for this reason he and team do not believe that the DPP was afforded the opportunity to review the file and advice on the charges to be laid.
“We are of the strong opinion that no experienced prosecutor would give such advice to the police, knowing fully well that this innocent young female teenage student would have to languish in a holding centre away from her friends and family until she is discharged by a Magistrate as she most likely will be,” he went on to add.
It is against this background that Todd said he and team want the DDP to review the file and give the necessary advice to the police prosecutors.
Todd says that if the charges are not withdrawn, he and team “will be forced to institute civil and constitutional proceedings against the office of the DPP and the State,” seeking certain orders, declarations and substantial damages.
“It is a great injustice to have this innocent 15-year-old young lady in a holding centre for an offence in which the prosecution has no likelihood of success,” the attorney said; while expressing the hope that the case file would be reviewed before the matter is called again in early September.
Todd said that the teen and her family are of little means and they are forced to expend already limited resources on constant travel from their home village to the city to visit her, along with many other related expenses.
He said she now also has a stigma attached to her as this is her first offence which is 20 counts of murder of her friends and classmates in a matter that has attracted global attention.
“The long-term effect of this is unimaginable and justice requires that the right thing be done,” Todd said.
The DPP had advised that charges be instituted against the teenager.
The Guyana Police Force’s (GPF) Corporate Communications Unit Director Mark Ramotar had said in a statement just after the fire, “Police investigations so far… reveal that a female student is suspected of having set the devastating fire because her cellular phone was taken away by the dorm mother and a teacher.”
The 20 children who perished in the fire were identified as Nicholeen Robinson, Natalie Bellarmine, Eulanda Carter, Subrina John, Martha D’ Andrade, Adonijah Jerome, Mary D’Andrade, Bibi Rita Jeffrey, Loreen Evans, Belnisa Evans, Omefia Edwin, Andrea Roberts, Lorita Williams, Sherena Daniels, Lisa Roberts, Cleoma Simon, Tracil Thomas, Delecia Edwards Arianna Edwards and Sherana Daniels.
The preliminary inquiry (PI) in the charges is being conducted at the Mahdia Magistrate’s Court before Senior Magistrate Sunil Scarce.
