Inadequate legal representation aided in a miscarriage of justice -lawyer argues at murder conviction appeal

Feb 10, 2019 News

---

 

The lack of adequate representation by counsel aided in a miscarriage of justice for Clive Knights, who was tired, convicted and sentenced to 57 years’ imprisonment for the murder of Guyana and Trinidad Mutual Life (GTM) Insurance executive, Bert Whyte.
On May 12, 2014, Knights murdered Bert Whyte, 44, a former resident of Lot 79, Phoenix Park, West Bank Demerara, and Assistant Company Secretary at GTM. According to the State Prosecutor then, on May 14, 2012, Whyte dropped his niece, Rayshawn, off at school before leaving for work.
Later that evening, Whyte’s brother received a telephone call from a friend. As a result, he went to the Accident and Emergency, (A&E) Department of the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation, (GPHC) where he found Whyte lying motionless on the bed.
He was dead with two puncture wounds to his chest and apparent blood stains on his clothing. Forensic Pathologist Dr. Nehaul Singh confirmed that Whyte

had died from haemorrhage and shock due to the perforation of the heart and lungs as a result of the stab wounds he sustained.
However, Knights, through his Attorney-at-Law Dexter Todd, has appealed the sentence and conviction on several grounds, one being that during the trial his counsel failed to adequately represent him which led to a miscarriage of justice.

Last week, Knights’s lawyer presented arguments to this effect to Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory who are hearing his appeal.
While the name of the lawyer who represented Knights then was not disclosed in court, it is Todd’s belief that when there is a failure to adequately represent the case of an accused person it is almost impossible for the judge to fairly put the accused’s case to the jury.
According to Todd, from court records, Knights was advised by his then lawyer to remain silent at three crucial points during his trial.
These were during the Voir Dire (trial within a trial) which was conducted to challenge the admissibility of an alleged caution statement Knights had given police, after a no-case submission was overruled by the court and he was called upon to lead a defence and after the jury returned with the unanimous guilty verdict.
However, it was put to Todd by the Chancellor that under the law Knights is entitled to remain silent, since it is the prosecution which has to prove the offence for which he is charged beyond reasonable doubt. But Todd insisted that the conviction was unfit having regard to the evidence adduced at trial and inadequate representation by counsel.

Further in his submission, Todd pointed out that Knights’s lawyer failed to argue provocation on his behalf, since from the deposition of a witness,

he defended himself from Whyte who was attempting to sodomize him.
In a caution statement, Knights had allegedly told ranks that Whyte had told him he was a homosexual and expressed a desire to be in a relationship with him. He had related that on the day in question they went drinking at a bar on Main Street and he became intoxicated and tired and fell asleep in Whyte’s car.

Afterward, Knights said he felt someone’s finger at his anus and when he opened his eyes he found Whyte’s head between his legs performing oral sex on him. The convict, according to the statement, said that he had an ice pick, which he said he used to stab Whyte before driving away with his car.
Todd contends that the lawyer also failed to challenge the absence of forensic evidence in relation to the testimony of Superintendent of Police, David who testified to visiting the crime scene at Palm Court, Main Street, Georgetown where he observed two spots of what appeared to be blood on the ground.
Todd submitted that trial Judge Navindra Singh failed to put to the jury that the police witness said that he saw “what appeared to be blood.” Instead, Todd said that the trial judge told the jurors that David said he saw blood, when there was no forensic evidence to support such a conclusion.
Citing a case from the Privy Council, Todd stated that no forensic scientist testified on behalf of the prosecution to state whether the substance found at the crime scene was indeed blood, whether it was human blood and if it belonged to the deceased or some other person.
Senior State Counsel Stacy Goodings, who indicated that she would be relying on submissions previously filed with the court, contended that at no stage during his trial did Knights indicate that he was being deprived of an opportunity to address the court.
Goodings said that his legal representative choose for him to exercise his right to remain silent, which in her view, is nothing wrong. The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision in this matter. Notices for decision will be sent to the parties.

---

---