MAGISTRATE Nayasha Hatmin has found Loraine Brummel not guilty of forgery.
A charge against her for that offence was dismissed recently on the ground that the evidence against her was weak and untenable.
In the case of the Police v Loraine Brummel, the latter was charged with the offence of forgery, in that she was granted Letters of Administration of the estate of her father Lionel Brummel, in what she purported to have the authority and a written permission of her four brothers, Leroy Brummel, Floyd Brummel, Adrian Brummel and Lennox Brummel.
Only one of the brothers, Lennox Brummel, gave evidence for the prosecution in which he said that the signature on the document of consent looked like his signature, but in fact he could not recall signing the document.
Under cross-examination, Lennox Brummel, who was a police constable, admitted that he was not on speaking terms with Loraine although they were only two of five beneficiaries who occupied the father’s house.
He also admitted that after the burial of their father, he was present at a family meeting where his three brothers consented to the accused processing the papers of their deceased father, as administrator, but he said nothing.
He admitted that he had given specimens of his signature to the hand writing expert at the Police Forensic Department but could not recall the name of the police at the said department, although, in cross-examination, he recollected the names of all the police who worked in the Forensic Department of the Police Force, under Detective Inspector Carlton Charles, the handwriting expert.
It was pointed out that although the evidence of the Detective Inspector was not favourable to the accused, his findings were tendered for identification only.
And his cross-examination was deferred to a subsequent date. On six subsequent occasions, the said expert witness failed to attend court to be cross-examined.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, defence counsel Mr. Jainarayan Singh made the submission that, since the charge was forgery – the completed evidence of the expert witness – was vital to the prosecution’s case.    The court was therefore unable to rely on his findings, counsel said.
The said submission was overruled by Magistrate Hatmin.
The defendant gave sworn testimony and, among other things, said the document of consent was given to her daughter to give Lennox Brummel to affix his signature on the document, as she was not on speaking terms with him. It was returned by Lennox Brummel to her on the very day.  She sent the document to her lawyer’s chambers – Mr. Leslie Sobers
The documents for the administration of her father’s estate were then processed by the Attorney-at-law, and letters of Administration were duly granted to her.
On May 12, defence counsel Jainarayan Singh submitted that the findings of Inspector Charles could not be relied on. He contended that there was no other forensic or other evidence to suggest that Lennox Brummel had not signed the Consent.
Counsel further submitted that the expert evidence was shaky and the plaintiff had demonstrated hatred for his sister who is the defendant in the matter.
The magistrate found that the evidence was weak and untenable and found the defendant not guilty of the offence of forgery.