Campbellville murder trial accused discharged…
–  to face another P.I.
CRIMINAL  Assize Judge William Ramlal has found that the  magistrate’s Committal Order of murder accused Elroy Torres called ‘Ellie’ was  invalid  and declared same a nullity. Because of this invalidity of the Committal Order, the subsequent indictment of the Order by the DPP is also a nullity, necessitating that the accused be discharged by the judge.
The accused Torres, who was charged with the murder of 38-year old  Elizabeth Hutson,  nicknamed “Shelly”, was discharged and had just begun his freedom journey in the corridor of the court when he was re-arrested and taken  into custody, relative to his facing another preliminary inquiry  at the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It was learnt that the defence lawyer, Mr.  Lawrence Harris, was contemplating taking civil action to prevent the DPP from taking action against him on the ground that he was not responsible for the action taken that caused the Court to react in the way it did.    
When the matter came up for trial last week, the accused Elroy Torres,  who was represented by defence counsel Mr. Lawrence Harris, pleaded not guilty and  a mixed jury was empanelled to try his case.
But before Prosecutor Miss Shivrani  Balcharan, assisted by lawyer Miss Rhondel Weever, could deliver her opening address to the jury, defence  counsel Mr. Harris  took a preliminary point  in which he submitted that the Committal Order was a nullity and as a consequence ,  the  indictment was bad in law and should be quashed.
In support of his contention, the defence  lawyer complained that at the inquiry,  the magistrate, who had a confession statement as the sole evidence against the accused, went on to commit the  accused  for trial without  determining  whether that confession  statement  was voluntarily made and whether it was admissible or inadmissible in evidence.
The prosecution submitted that the defence submissions  should be thrown out or overruled on the ground that there was no legislative requirement that a magistrate must hold a voir dire before  admitting a confession statement.
And according to her, the State wished to rely on Blackstone’s Criminal Practice in support of its stand.  She also said that voluntariness is seldom used in the instant  case.
Miss Balcharan noted that the confession statement was not the only evidence on which the magistrate could have acted to commit the accused.
And she referred to three oral statements from which it could be implied that the magistrate used those statements to commit.
Following his ruling, the judge said, “I found and rule that the admission  of the purportive written caution statements into evidence at the P.I. was unfairly  done and done in violation of the accused ‘s right  to a fair  hearing.
“I find and rule further that the magistrate never determined the caution statement at the P.I.  and he therefore never  had any sufficient  admissible evidence before him to determine the sufficiency  of the evidence  to justify the committal.  
“ Accordingly I rule  that the  committal is a nullity and consequently that the  indictment is a nullity, and is accordingly quashed.  The accused is discharged.”
Turning to the accused, the judge said to him, “You are free to go.”