Depositions not true copy of original
DR Abubakir Abdel Bari, on trial for conspiracy to defraud contrary to common law, was yesterday freed by a Demerara Assize jury on the directions of trial Judge Mr. James Bovell-Drakes.

Following a voir dire (a trial within a trial) conducted by the judge to determine the admissibility of the depositions in the case, the judge ruled that the depositions were not a true copy of the original document before the magistrate.

The judge also found that out of 35 exhibits tendered at the preliminary inquiry before the magistrate, only five could be accounted for.

The judge found too that the depositions before the court, which the Prosecution was hoping to rely on after the clerks of court reported that they could not locate the original depositions, were not a true copy of the original, and that the accused was without a deposition.

The prosecution had set out to prove that the Supreme Court Registry had collated and certified the depositions in Court as a true copy of the original document before the magistrate, on which the accused was committed to stand trial.

But after the judge found otherwise, he told the lawyers on both sides of his findings, and requested their views on the matter.

Defence Counsel Mr. Nigel Hughes, who appeared for the accused in association with Miss Kenita Cumberbatch, submitted that there being no deposition, the accused must be dismissed since the Criminal Law Procedure provides that an accused, once committed, is entitled to a copy of the depositions.

On the other hand, Special Prosecutor Mr. Bernard De Santos, S.C. who is heading the team for the prosecution, referred to the defence arguments as unmeritorious. He declared that while he concedes that the accused is entitled to a deposition, the law did not specify that the prosecution was responsible for the handing of the deposition to the accused.

If the accused did not uplift the depositions from the Registry himself, the Prosecution, De Santos said, could not be held responsible for his failure.

The Special Prosecutor further submitted that the trial should proceed. And, that the Court will at some stage consider whether there is reason, factual or legal, to terminate the trial.

At this stage, the judge recalled the jury from the jury room, where they had been since the voir dire started on November 16, 2009. He gave them directions which they followed by returning a verdict of not guilty in favour of accused Abubakir Abdel Bari, who was discharged by the judge.

When the matter was called in Court on November 16, an application was made to the judge to the effect that the original depositions could not be located by the Clerks of the Supreme Court Registry, and as such, they would have to utilise the collated certified copy of the original.

But since the defence was contending that the copy was not a true copy of the original, a voir dire was considered to decide the issue.