IN 196l, Frank Gunraj, who was convicted by a Demerara Assize Jury for unlawful possession of moulds for making counterfeit coins, was freed by the Federal Supreme Court because of the trial judge’s “projectional interjection, misdirection, and detrimental observation.”The trouble for the prosecution started when an accomplice, who had given the police incriminating information against Gunraj, denied in his evidence that he had done so, causing the judge to intervene, telling him: “Speak the truth: Whom are you trying to save?”

After the witness reneged and in fact testified that he did give the police the statement which resulted in the charge, the judge observed: “The truth came out,” and later advised the jury to disregard the witness’s testimony.
But the accused, Gunraj, who was convicted by the jury, successfully appealed against the conviction and sentence.
The facts disclosed that the appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of moulds for making counterfeit coins. Another man, one Azeez Kazim, who had been jointly indicted with him, was acquitted.
This co-accused had informed the police that the appellant had moulds in his possession and, at their request, had subsequently handed them a mould which he said he had taken from the appellant’s premises.
A search warrant was later executed at the appellant’s premises and two moulds and other implements for counterfeiting were found there. The appellant’s defence was that he did not know that the articles found were on his premises, and that the co-accused must have put them there. The co-accused gave evidence.
At first, he denied the statements he had given to the police, and he also denied that he had handed them a mould. The judge admonished him to speak the truth and said to him: “Whom are you trying to shield?”
The co-accused then admitted the truth of the evidence given by the police witness.
In the course of the summing-up, the judge, on three or four occasions, directed the jury that in considering the case against the appellant, they should disregard completely the evidence of the co-accused. He also told the jury that after the co-accused had been admonished to speak the truth, the truth did come out.
Among other things, the Federal Supreme Court, in its Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, constituted by Chief Justice Stanley Gomes and Justices C Wylie and AM Lewis, held that:
(i) The interjection by the judge during the evidence of the co-accused was highly prejudicial to the appellant;
(ii) The instruction to the jury to disregard entirely the evidence of the co-accused was a misdirection; and
(iii) The observation that the truth did come out was detrimental to the appellant and amounted to a withdrawal from the jury of a very material issue. As such, the appeal was allowed.

At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was represented by Mr C Lloyd Luckhoo, QC, while Mr J Gonsalves-Sabola (who later became a Justice of Appeal) represented the Crown.
In delivering the court’s judgment, Justice Gomes said:
“In this case, the appellant, Frank Gunraj, was indicted together with a man named Azeez Kazim, for unlawfully and knowingly having in their possession moulds for making counterfeit coins, contrary to Section 296 (a) of the Criminal Law (Offences) Ordinance, Chapter 10 [BG].
“The indictment contained three counts; the two men were charged together in the first two counts, but Kazim alone was indicted in the third. The appellant was convicted on the first two counts, and Kazim was acquitted on all the counts.”
According to the Chief Justice, for the purpose of the matter at hand, it was necessary to state only a brief outline of some of the facts, namely, that Kazim informed the police that the appellant had some moulds in his possession and that, at their request, he subsequently handed one of the moulds to the police, claiming he had uplifted it from the appellant’s premises.
A search warrant was then executed on the appellant’s premises, Justice Gomes said, and two moulds and other accessories for counterfeiting were found.
The appellant’s defence, he said, was that he had no knowledge that the moulds and other articles were in his back room, and that Kazim must have been the one who “planted” them there. He made the point that Kazim had previously offered to teach Gunraj how to make counterfeit money, and that the latter was so incensed that he had threatened to report the former to the police.
Giving evidence under oath, Justice Gomes said, Kazim at first “denied all the statements that the police witnesses had given in regard to the information he had given them, and the delivery of the mould to them, and he also denied that he had ever been to the appellant’s shop.”

Then, under cross-examination by Counsel for the Crown, “he committed a complete volte-face by admitting the truth of the evidence of the police witnesses, in the respects mentioned, and he then went on and gave evidence implicating the appellant.”
According to Justice Gomes, the reason for the volte-face appears to have been that the learned judge had occasion to admonish him to speak the truth, in the course of which the judge said to him: “Whom are you trying to shield?”
Towards the end of his summing-up, he addressed the jury thus:
“The Number Two accused was cross-examined by counsel for the appellant with my leave and, you will recall, the Number Two accused said he realized that he had told a different story that day before and he further realized that he had offered up two different defences; that between yesterday and today, it was suggested that he should speak the truth with regard to what he was saying; that he was told to speak the truth, and the truth did come out.”
According to Justice Gomes, had a proper direction been given, it would reasonably have been open to the jury, when they considered the defence of the appellant, to conclude that as Kazim was such a thoroughly self-discredited person, they should entertain grave doubts as to the truthfulness of the information he gave to the police, in so far as it imputed to the appellant knowledge of the presence of the moulds in his room.
The third submission by the defence was that the observation, “…and the truth did come out” was detrimental to the appellant because the learned judge’s forceful expression of his view amounted to a withdrawal from the jury of a very material issue.
Said Justice Gomes in closing: “We consider that the remark was prejudicial for that reason, and also because it was made with regard to the evidence of a co-accused who was seeking to incriminate the appellant, but who had clearly shown that he was unworthy of credit.
“It must be remembered that the main issue in the case was whether the appellant had guilty knowledge, the appellant’s defence being that moulds had been “planted” on his premises by the accused. The forceful observation that was made that the second version given by Kazim was the truth necessarily implied that the appellant’s defence was untruthful.
“For these reasons the court considered that the conviction could not stand. Appeal allowed.”