Newsday TT

IN February 2001, both Dhanraj Singh and Elliott Hypolite were charged with the same offence — the murder of Hansraj Sumairsingh.

However, following a statement taken from Hypolite in the dead of night - from 9.50 pm to 12.50 am —Dhanraj, the former Local Government minister, became the lone accused in the case. This was revealed late yesterday during rigid cross-examination by lead defence counsel, Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, of the complainant, Sgt Fitzgerald George. George returns to the witness stand 9 am today to be further cross-examined by Hudson-Phillips. Most of yesterday - from 9.30 am to 2.30 pm, with a 45-minute lunch break — was taken up with legal arguments by Hudson-Phillips for the defence and Sir Timothy Cassel QC for the prosecution on the admissibility of a letter said to be from the deceased, Hansraj Sumairsingh. The trial judge, Justice Melville Baird, will rule on the issue sometime later.

The jury did not return to the courtroom until 2.42 pm yesterday when Sgt George was recalled to the witness stand to be cross-examined.
Hudson-Phillips launched out: Now, Sgt George I will ask you certain questions and I want you to answer as direct as possible. You need not have any fear of me. I want to ask you about your visit to the scene of this crime sometime on the afternoon of December 31, 1999; was it about four o' clock?
GEORGE: It was sometime after 4 pm.
Further questioned, witness said when he arrived he observed a door to the kitchen of the premises, the lock on it was broken.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: You saw no blood on the outside of that door? — No sir.
Apart from the kitchen door you saw another door which was closed? — Yes it was closed from the inside.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So we have two doors, one closed from the inside, and the other at the kitchen with its lock broken? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: You went into the kitchen, you saw no blood in the kitchen?

GEORGE: I saw stains resembling blood on the walls of the kitchen.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; And the scrapings from those stains were negative?

GEORGE: Yes, according to the scientific officer.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Are you challenging the scientific office? — No sir.
You saw blood in the bedroom, on a bed? — Yes sir.
And on that bed there was a plastic of some sort with blood? — Yes.
So on both items you saw there were stains resembling blood? —Yes.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; The analysis indicated it was in fact blood? — Yes sir.
It was of the same type of the deceased? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; So it would be safe to assume that the deceased was bleeding when he went into that bedroom? — Probably

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; You also took some samples from the earth outside? — Yes.
Those were negative on the analysis? — Yes sir.
Why did you send samples of earth for analysis? — Because I had information.

Justice Baird interjected: But this is hearsay.
HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Where did you take the samples of earth from?

GEORGE: From the yard of the beach house.
And you sent them as samples of blood? - No sir
For urine? — No sir.
For what? — It was submitted for comparison of stains from a motor vehicle.
You had information that a vehicle was in the yard? — No sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: You had a PC O'Connor who was a fingerprint expert on the scene? — Yes sir.
Is he a witness in this matter?

GEORGE: I do not know if he would be called.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Did you cite him? — I do not recall
Has he given a statement? — Yes
He identified, in your presence certain impressions inside the premises? — Yes sir.
Any other areas you saw him testing and whatever? — Yes sir.
And he left several markings inside the premises? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: You saw a 929 motor vehicle in the yard? — Yes sir.
You saw the door open? — Not when I arrived.
The music was still playing? - Yes.
The key was in the ignition? — I cannot recall.
Did you take possession of that car at all? — No sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Shortly after visiting the scene within a couple of days you got a statement from a witness called Watson? — Yes sir.
Also one from her husband, a Mr Ochoa? -- Yes sir.
The husband gave you certain registration numbers of a motor car? — Yes.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; You got a certificate of ownership matching that number? — yes.
Do you have it with you?- I should think so.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Can you show me? — Yes sir (witness looks through his file).

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: How many certificates of ownership did you get? Two sir.
May I see them please? (Witness then hands certificates to the court).

HUDSON-PHILLIPS (After examining certificates queried) But you took nine months to go and get these certificates of ownership? — Yes sir. I got information from a Licensing Officer prior to obtaining the certificates.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Now, the situation of this place where you saw the body of the deceased, there were several houses around? — Yes sir.
These houses are inhabited, you know, people living in them? Yes, but not all of them.
But in several there are people living there? — Yes sir

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: During the course of your inquiries, during the early part of the year 2000 you interviewed several persons apart from this accused? — Yes sir.
You interviewed about ten persons? — It could have been.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: As suspects in the killing? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: In January of 2000 you detained the following persons as suspects, including — Roger Bridgeman, also called Black Roger, Mohammed Aleem, Leslie Ottley, Dave Fraser, and Elliott Hypolite?

GEORGE: Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Who were the other persons you detained.? — They were the persons detained.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Sometime a little later you interviewed and got statements from various persons? — Yes sir.
In March, 2000, you got a statement from a man called Fazal Ali, also known as Ted? — Yes.
As a result of what he told you, did you go and interview anybody? — Yes sir.
Were those persons among those whose names I just called? — Yes sir.
Apart from Fazal Ali, also called Ted, you also recorded a statement from Gopaul Ramkeesoon on March 24? — I did not personally take that interview.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; I take it, as the complainant in this matter you know of all the inquiries in this matter? — I think so.
So you received a statement on March 24 from Gopaul Ramkeesoon? — Yes sir.
In April you got a statement from Rodney Lutchman, also called Abdool Karim? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: All those were members of the Jamaat al Muslimeen?

GEORGE: Except Gopaul Ramkeesoon.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Fazal Ali was a member; what about Lutchman?

GEORGE: I know he practised at Enterprise.

What about Hypolite? I knew he was a member of the Jamaat.
Under further cross-examination witness said he also received a statement from a man called Marcano.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: As a result of your inquiries you received information about certain motor vehicles? — Yes sir.
And you had a motor vehicle seized? — Yes sir.
Where is it today? — At the Rio Claro Police Station.
You had information with respect to this motor vehicle which was taken from the place of the man Lutchman, or was it removed?

GEORGE: I had information from Gopaul Ramkeesoon.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: He gave you certain information about that vehicle? — Yes sir.
Following that, witness said he spoke to Fazal Ali. HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Do you recall that sometime in January or February, 2001, a picture of a motor vehicle on the Mirror?

GEORGE: A sort of motor vehicle.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: It was a red vehicle - a 323? — I think so.
That motor vehicle which you said was at Rio Claro Police Station, is it still there? -- Yes sir.
You examined it for its chassis number?—Yes.
You got a certificate in respect of it? — Yes sir.
And you have that certificate in your possession? — I am not sure, sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Well, would you like to check, Mr George?
After searching his file for the certificate, George responded "No sir, I don't have it in my possession. He further explained that a certified copy was received from the original owner, and that the original was tendered elsewhere.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Oh well, that was tendered in the prosecution of Hypolite? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Well tell us. So in the prosecution of Hypolite a certified vehicle ownership certificate was tendered in court? — Yes.
So by November, 2000 you had statements of certain activities by certain people? — Yes.
In short, you had information since March 24 concerning the man Hypolite? — yes.
You had information on the man Fazal Ali also called Ted? — Yes.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; No charge was brought against Hypolite until some six months later?

WITNESS: Yes.
Is that so? -- In November, 2000.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS:The same persons who gave you information were also cited in that matter to give evidence? — Yes.
The man Fazal Ali, was he cited? -- Yes sir.
Asked if he had recorded another statement from Fazal Ali in November, 2000, witness responded "one was recorded."

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: After Hypolite was charged? — I don't think so.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Well let me put it to you. You did know of Inspector Khan recorded a statement from Ali in November, 2000? — Yes sir.
That would have been after Hypolite was charged? -- No sir.
Hypolite was charged on November 13, the day after? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPSL; You got Fazal Ali to swear to a statutory declaration in support of the statement? — Yes sir.
You did not charge Ali? — No sir.
So how come you made him swear to a statutory declaration?

GEORGE: There was a reason for making him swear to a declaration -- to satisfy myself that his statement was correct.
What was the date he swore to the declaration? — I am not sure.
Would you swear it was November 14, 2000? — I am not sure.
But in any event you sought to make sure of the evidence of Fazal Ali? — Yes sir.
He had given to you an earlier statement in March of the same year? — Yes sir.
You did not require him to swear to a statutory declaration with respect to that statement?

GEORGE: It was not done, sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; And Fazal Ali has not been cited as a witness in this matter? — No sir.
His evidence in your view was relevant to the charge against Hypolite? — Yes sir.
It was not relevant to the charge in this matter? — No sir
As a result of the information from Fazad Ali you formed a certain view which you believed, is that so? — It depends on what that view is.
Was it not as a result of that statement you charged Hypolite? — That, among other things.
But the evidence you had from Fazal Ali you charged Hypolite? — Yes sir.
At this juncture Sir Timothy objected to the line of cross-examination about whether the witness believed. He said it was totally irrelevant. The objection was upheld by the judge.
Hudson-Phillips then hinted that he would have to make serious comments, since he felt it was relevant to the case for the accused, as to whether this officer charged someone else on the identical evidence which he believed.
Hudson-Phillips resuming, enquired: On the basis of evidence from Ali you charged Hypolite?

GEORGE: Yes sir.
You would not charge someone on evidence you did not believe? — No sir.
So you had information from the man Fazal Ali who gives you a statutory declaration with the statement attached, and partly on the basis of that you charged Hypolite? — Yes sir.
You cited Fazal Ali on the basis of which you charged Hypolite? -- Yes.
But Fazal Ali is not a witness in this case? -- No sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Let us go piece by piece again Mr George. You cited a man called Gopaul Ramkeesoon in the case of Hypolite — Yes sir.
He is not a witness in this matter? — Not so far as I know.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: The man Rodney Lutchman, also called Abdool Karim, you cited him in the matter of Hypolite? — No sir
And of course he is not a witness in this matter? — No sir.
In November, 2000 you charged Hypolite with the murder of Sumairsingh? — Yes sir.
At that time you had no statement from Hypolite? — No.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: At the time you charged Hypolite you had in your possession all the evidence which you used to charge this accused person, except Hypolite statement? — Yes sir.
So that it is on the basis of the statement of Hypolite that you have brought this charge against this accused person?
George; Among other evidence.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: No, that is not so; you already told me you not have anything more after Hypolite's statement? — No sir.
Whatever it was you had before in your view could not substantiate the charge against this accused person? — Yes sir.
Otherwise you would not have charged him? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So your cases rests totally Mr George on the evidence of Mr Hypolite? — No sir.
Having charged Hypolite, proceedings commenced before the magistrate in Rio Claro?
GEORGE: In Mayaro sir.
At the time you charged Hypolite you were not assisted by any senior police officers? — yes sir.
Who were these officers? — Sgt Mohammed, Inspector Khan, Snr. Supt Philbert.
Any others? — Not senior sir.
What about Mr Nedd, was he assisting you? — Not at that time.
From the time you charged Hypolite there were police investigations about voter padding?
GEORGE: I do not know if that was the period, sir. An inquiry was going on.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Do you recall a general election took place sometime in December, 2000? —Yes
And the result of that election was keenly contested? — yes
Two of the persons involved, you remember Gypsy and Chaitan? —Yes sir.
That was a big thing in this country? — To some people.
Not to you? — No sir.
You were aware, were you not, that some your superiors in this matter was also concerned about this question of voter padding, including Mr Philbert; they were involved in investigations about voter padding? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: There were also other investigations and inquiries into corruption in the government?
Witness said he did not know whether those inquiries into the government was during the time he charged Hypolite.
After complaints by members of the jury about the low tone of voice by Mr George, in that they were not hearing him properly, the judge had the witness adjust the stand of his (witness) microphone which he placed on some books.
Hudson-Phillips continued: In any event the case against Hypolite was commenced before the magistrate in Mayaro? — Yes sir.
Several witnesses gave evidence? — yes
You were the complainant in that matter? — Yes sir.
And Mr George on February 20, 2001 you charged this accused present with the murder of Hansraj Sumairsingh? — Around that date sir.
At the time you swore to that information Hypolite was still charged with the same offence? —Yes sir.
So at one time you had two persons charged with the identical offence, with the murder of Sumairsingh?
GEORGE : Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: Shortly before you charged this accused present you were handed a statement by Inspector Khan. It was given to you, or recorded from Hypolite? —yes sir.
That statement was dated February 16? — Yes sir
This statement by Hypolite handed to you was a statement under caution? — Yes sir.
And it was witnessed by Supt Philbert? -- Yes sir.
And Sgt Abraham? — Yes sir.
And then witnessed by the brother of a Member of Parliament, isn't that so -- the Member of Parliament for Sangre Grande; isn't his brother an attorney?

GEORGE: I do not know that for sure.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; You do not know Mr Roger Boynes? — He is an attorney.

You don't know that he has a brother, another attorney, who is now a Minister of Government; you don't know that? — No sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; But this lawyer who witnessed this statement was not the lawyer for Hypolite on the charge of murder at all? — No sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; So Mr Brooks was appearing for Hypolite on the murder charge, and he also appeared after this statement was taken? -- I am not quite sure.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Do you know Mr Boynes appeared in the magistrate's court for Hypolite? — No sir.
This statement witnessed by Mr Philbert and Mr Boynes, was taken in the dead of the night. Do you have reason to doubt that it started at 9.50 pm and was not completed until 12.50 am the next day? — No sir.
JUDGE: No, meaning what?
GEORGE: I have no reason to doubt.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: And this was after a lot of evidence had been led.
Based on that statement you charged Dhanraj Singh? — Yes sir.
You then Mr George cited Hypolite against Dhanraj Singh? —Yes sir.
The same man you had charged with the murder before? — Yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: In addition, the DPP discontinued the proceedings against Hypolite? — I understand so, yes sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: And then he was given immunity on condition? — Yes
One of the conditions was, that he must not leave Trinidad? — I am not aware of that, sir.
So you did not know the condition under which your star witness is existing Mr George? — I'm not sure.
One of the conditions too is that he must remain in police custody?
GEORGE: He asked for police protection.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS: So there are policemen in this man's house? — I don't know that.
I want to know if this man is free to talk the truth? — Very free, sir.
The thing is he must subject himself to the State? — Protection for his safety, sir.

HUDSON-PHILLIPS; Then if he does not subject himself you can still charge him, that is a condition?
GEORGE: I am not aware of that.

A problem turned up about the witness's signature on some document which the State promised to submit to the court today.
Hudson-Phillips then informed the court that having regard to his diabetic condition, the situation dictated that he should end his questioning of the witness for the day.
Justice Baird looking at the clock which indicated it was 3.47 pm jocularly said, 'diabetes, or no diabetes, I think it is an appropriate time to adjourn.
Hearing resumes 9 am today, when Sgt George will return to the witness stand.