Biabou man to stand trial over burning death of ex-girlfriend

The 33-year-old Biabou man who was charged with burning his ex-girlfriend to death last year is to be sent to the High Court to stand trial.This was decided at the end of a preliminary inquiry looking into the sufficiency of evidence at the Serious Offences Court this Wednesday.

Nine witnesses gave evidence during the inquiry into the charge that Pedro Ashton of Biabou, on August 22, 2017, with malice aforethought, did cause the death of Monique Clarke of Biabou by an unlawful act.

Clarke died at the Milton Cato Memorial Hospital (MCMH) on August 22, 2017, being 45 years at the time of her death, after succumbing to burns across her body, sustained on August 13.

Clarke’s son, 13 years at the time of his mother’s death, and who was allegedly present that night, took the stand to give evidence, supported by his aunt.

The deceased’s sister, who remained close to her sister before her passing, also took the stand before Chief Magistrate Rechanne Browne-Matthias, shedding tears at one point.

Through all the evidence given, including pictures taken by the police of the deceased’s body, Ashton remained in the same posture, expressionless, and with his left hand behind his back and tucked behind his right hand.

Defence attorney for Ashton, Michael Wyllie of Fredericks Attorneys and Notary Public, gave a no case submission when the inquiry came to an end.

“As emotional as this might be you still have to have evidence, that is why we have courts,” Wyllie stated.He described the evidence as tenuous and all based on hearsay, saying, “none of which can pass the smell test of hearsay.”

He asked that Ashton be discharged, “until which time the prosecution could find sufficient evidence.”Senior Prosecutor Adolphus Delpesche stated that he was on the opposite end of the spectrum as “his friend”, and that “the evidence is overwhelming, it is not tenuous.”

He indicated that there were different categories of evidence accepted by the court, and even though some of the evidence is circumstantial, “there are strong, strong circumstantial evidence, and it is good evidence.”

The prosecutor also indicated that the prosecution had already submitted an exception to the hearsay rule.

He submitted that there was a prima facie case, and that the other questions were for the jury to answer.Browne-Matthias agreed that a prima facie case had been made out, that the evidence was sufficient, and that the case should be heard at the next available sitting of the criminal assizes.

Monique Clarke