Dear Editor

AFTER the acquittal of Mr. James Anthony Hyles and Mr. Mark Royden Williams in 2013 by a mixed jury at the Demerara Assizes, several news reports carried various stories about the relationship between the foreman of the jury and myself, as the defence counsel for the Mr. Hyles.

The reports included, but were not limited to the allegation that the foreman of the jury was a past client of mine is a matter which was not disclosed at the time of the trial.

During the several stages of the subsequent appeal I refrained from any comment on the issue. The finding of the Caribbean Court of Justice on this issue is as follows. “We are satisfied that if the judge had applied that test and analysed the history of the relationship between Mr. Hughes and the foreman he would have concluded that a fair-minded observer would not have perceived a real possibility of bias. As mentioned, the matter in which Mr.

Hughes had represented the foreman, which he lost, had concluded in 2008, some five years before the trial. Since that time, not only had counsel appeared in a court matter in opposition to the foreman, but the foreman had publicly demonstrated himself to be an adversary of counsel by participating in a picket against him. These facts do not indicate a relationship that would have been favourable to Mr. Hughes or his client, Hyles. We,

therefore, do not agree with the findings of the Court of Appeal on this ground of appeal. In light of the foregoing, the failure to disclose could not reasonably have affected the impartiality of the jury or the fairness of the trial, and therefore gave rise to no material irregularity.”
Regards
C. A. Nigel Hughes
Partner, Hughes, Fields & Stoby