Murder accused Paul Bagot freed
Judge accepts no-case submission in Bagot murder trial
JUSTICE William Ramlal yesterday accepted a defence no-case submission in the Paul Bagot murder trial and declared that the case fell down because of poor police investigations. The judge noted too that when culprits are let off by him because of the lackadaisical attitude of some police investigators in their preparation of cases, there are persons who would say, “Ramlal putting the criminals back on the road”.
Reacting to those persons, Judge Ramlal said, “Far from it, I cannot make blood out of stone, neither can the prosecutors do that. When a case is poorly prepared, you cannot blame the judge or the prosecution when the accused is freed.”
The judge went on to say that some police investigators, not all of them, are making the same mistakes over and over again.
He then made reference to a police officer who admitted in Court that he had committed perjury, and although it was published, he was not questioned nor disciplined.
The accused, Paul Bagot, also called Paul Moore, 38, was on trial for the murder of 16-year old Abigale Gittens of West Ruimveldt, said to be his girl-friend.
The accused was represented by Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Hukumchand, and had pleaded not guilty.
Because of poor police investigations, an oral confession and a written confession allegedly obtained from the accused were rejected following a voir dire (a trial within a trial) which was held to determine the admissibility of the statements.
The mother of the murdered girl had testified that she had gone to the hospital Emergency Room to visit her daughter on the night of 20th     September, 2004, when according to her, the girl made a dying declaration to her. The mother said that the girl had indicated the requirements of a dying declaration by saying – “Mommy-I can’t make it, I am going to die. I am going to tell you the truth. Paul knocked me down with a motor cycle. He then picked me up and started boring me.”
Following a voir dire, the judge had accepted the dying declaration in evidence.
But because of cross-examination which revealed that the dying declaration was doubtful and was not supported by persons, including a policeman, a nurse and a security Guard, the Judge decided to revisit his ruling and nullified the dying declaration.
After it was learnt from medical testimony that the girl was so badly wounded in the neck that it was unlikely that she could have spoken, much less to make a declaration.
The Court had also taken into account that the mother had said that when the declaration had been made to her by her daughter, a Security Guard that she knows, and a nurse who was attending the girl was about one foot away from her and could have heard what the girl was saying.
Yet, according, to the Judge, the prosecution, including the police, did not see it fit to call any of these witnesses to support the story about the dying declaration, as told by the mother.
The judge went on to say that the quality of police investigation is far below what is required.
Because the freed accused is facing a charge of attempting to escape from lawful custody, he was not allowed to go home. He was taken back into custody.
His lawyer, Mr. Hukumchand, disclosed that the charge was a bailable offence, and that he would be making application for bail.