DPP office places High Court in a conundrum

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution placed the High Court in a conundrum when an application was made to increase an indictment for some men who had been granted bail for killing and dismembering a man.

Javid Da Silva, and a then 15 year old boy appeared at the High Court before Justice Brian Cottle on Tuesday, April 9, 2024, where they pleaded not guilty that on March 2, 2023, at Georgetown with malice aforethought they caused the death of Sheldon Welch of Caratal, Georgetown by an unlawful act.

Lisroy Bacchus was also charged alongside the two men for assisting them by transporting the body of Welch and burying him with intent to impede apprehension.

Lawyer, Grant Connell, indicated that he represents Bacchus, and offered to act amicus curiae, which is a “friend of the court” for the teenager as he did in the lower court. Da Silva was not represented, so Justice Cottle assigned lawyer, Israel Bruce to serve as his counsel.

However, Senior Crown Counsel Richie Maitland informed the court that he was instructed to take a particular course of action which is to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. The indictment was amended, and a new charge of manslaughter was put to Da Silva and the teenager.

Cottle then explained to the accused that since their charge had now been reduced from murder to manslaughter, Bruce can no longer be assigned to him.

The trio then pleaded not guilty when the indictment was read to them. Each was granted bail in the sum of $20,000 with one surety and reporting conditions.

However, Crown Counsel Renee Simmons, filed for a new indictment, one that reads for murder, and not manslaughter.

When the men appeared in court yesterday, April 11, 2024, Connell called this new application “legal gymnastics” and said that the DPP “cannot come to this court and say a counsel of this calibre misread” the indictment. He also said that it is “highly prejudicial to the accused.”

Connell also ‘struggled’ to believe that this “legal injury was an error” which was caused by a “competent lawyer” who confused one thing for something else.

Justice Cottle, who admitted that this was the first time he had been in such a predicament, asked Crown Counsel Simmons for guidance on the matter.

“You’re the department that has placed the court in this conundrum,” Cottle said to Simmons.

Cottle said that while he understands that the DPP can do what the DPP wants, “Can you indict someone, then increase it?”

He then asked Counsel Simmons to justify her course of action using the law. However, Simmons experienced technical difficulties and was not able to do so at the moment. Cottle then asked her to make her submissions in writing.

He then referred to the accused and said, “I have nothing more to add than when you were here on Tuesday.” He told them that their status on bail, as well as their reporting conditions remain the same until further notice.