“Picture Boy double murder” Trial…Judge strikes out witness testimony

Nov 29, 2012 News

---

 
By Latoya Giles

Justice Diana Insanally yesterday struck from the records more than two hours of evidence given by defense witness, Dr. Dalgleish Joseph, because he was not deemed an expert before he challenged the cause of death given by Government Pathologist, Dr. Nehaul Singh.
The trial judge acceded to an application made by Senior State Counsel Judith Gildharie-Mursalin at the conclusion of the doctor’s evidence. The Prosecutor submitted to the court that in accordance with Section 16 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 5:03, being deemed an expert in a particular field is a precondition to giving opinion evidence on that subject.
Defense Counsel, Lyndon Amsterdam, submitted that no application was made because that was an “oversight” and asked the Judge to consider that the doctor had testified before in the void dire and was deemed an expert then and ought to similarly be deemed at this trial.
However, Gildharie-Mursalin submitted that a voir dire was a separate trial which was held in the absence of the jury and distinct from this main trial. She added that the judge ought not to deem the doctor an expert retrospectively. The doctor had already left the court.
Dr. Joseph was the second witness called by the defense when the trial of double-murder accused, Cyon Collier, called ‘Picture Boy’, resumed before a mixed Demerara Assizes jury. Collier is charged with the murder of Victoria brothers, Ray Walcott, called ‘Sugar’, and Carl Andrews, called ‘Alo’ on September 23, 2006.
Dr. Singh, a witness called by the prosecution, testified in relation to the two post mortem reports and gave the cause of death for Walcott as “multiple gunshot injuries.” Dr. Joseph told the court that such a finding was not a cause of death.
When cross-examined by the Prosecutor, the doctor admitted that he was not a Forensic Pathologist. He was then asked about him challenging the cause of death given by a specialist Forensic Pathologist on the basis of him (Dr. Joseph) having been lectured to some 30 years ago on Pathology and his answer was that he was doing so based on his knowledge as a surgeon and the number of patients he had treated with multiple gunshot injuries.
The Prosecutor asked the doctor to look at the findings on Walcott’s post mortem report and say what the cause of death would have been. The doctor said it would take time for him to read it but the judge told him to do so, after which he said the cause of death would have been “lethal injuries that occurred at the level of the head, neck and chest.”
Pushed further as to what would have caused those lethal injuries, he conceded that it would have been the gunshots.
The Prosecutor asked Dr Joseph if he considered Dr. Nehaul Singh to be a professional colleague of his and he said yes. He was then asked if he was aware of the Medical Practitioners (Code of Conduct and Standards of Practice) Regulations 2008 which has as one of its aims and objectives to promote public confidence in colleagues and that his testimony was in contravention of these Regulations. Dr. Joseph said he was brought to court as an expert to give opinion and that was what he was doing and there was no law in Guyana which prohibits an expert from so doing.
He was then read 46(3) of the said Code of Conduct which stipulates that an unsustainable comment of a Medical Practitioner which, directly or by implication, sets out to undermine trust in the knowledge or skills of a professional colleague is unethical and prohibited and that by his testimony in court he was, by implication, undermining trust in the knowledge and skills of Dr. Singh.
Dr. Joseph said his opinion was sought based on the evidence shown to him and no law or regulation can prevent a medical practitioner from giving evidence on findings in a court of law. He said if persons like him, in exercising their professional responsibilities can be accused of any unethical doings that obviously would be farfetched and dubious.
Dr. Joseph also admitted that he did not examine the accused at any time and therefore could not say for how long he had the varicocele with hydrocele, nor could he say if Collier ever had a sexually transmitted infection or contracted filaria from mosquito bites which could have led to his condition.
The Prosecutor referred him to Regulation 8(1)(c) of the Code of Conduct which provides that a Medical Practitioner shall be cautious that he should testify only to that which he has personally verified and then asked him about him testifying in direct contravention of same. Dr. Joseph said he testified based on the autopsy reports and medical records shown to him.
Following Dr. Joseph’s evidence, the defense closed its case. The trial will resume on Monday when Amsterdam is expected to give his closing address.

---

---