R v Trott

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 23 February 2018
• Docket Number: Criminal Jurisdiction 2017 No 27
• Date: 23 February 2018
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)

[2018] Bda LR 15

In The Supreme Court of Bermuda

Criminal Jurisdiction 2017 No 27

Between:

The Queen

Plaintiff

and

Jahmiko Trott

Defendant

Mr C Mahoney for the Plaintiff

Mr C Richardson for the Defendant

The following cases were referred to in the judgment:

R v Williams [2017] Bda LR 110

Chaney v R [2009] EWCA Crim 21

R v DS [2014] EWCA Crim 933

R v Tucker [2016] EWCA Crim 13

Application to exclude recognition evidence — Admission of CCTV footage — Whether breach of PACE Code

RULING of Greaves J

Introduction

1. On 14 May 2017 the Complainant was enjoying Mother's Day with his cousin in an apartment in the Court Street area. A gunman said to be the Defendant, Mr Trott, embarked upon that house, demanded to be let in and pursued the complainant, who escaped from the house onto the street. There, the two engaged in a scuffle. Several shots were let off. Another person said to be the Co-defendant, Mr Burgess, joined the melee. The Complainant escaped and fled to the police station where he made a report and in video audio interviews recorded by DC Donawa and others named the Defendant Trott as the gun man and Mr Burgess as his assister.

2. As a result, one of the interviewing officers DC Mathurin put out a lookout by police intranet for the arrest of the Defendant Trott and shortly after, Mr Burgess as well.

3. CCTV showing the events on the street were recovered from two nearby establishments very shortly after. Both defendants were arrested shortly after and charged.

4. Shortly before the trial the Complainant's cousin came forward and gave a statement to the police and evidence during the trial identifying both defendants by way of recognition and without an opportunity firstly to view the CCTV or apparently to have discussions with the complainant who was apparently in safe keeping since the incident.

5. It may be helpful to refer to the statements of DC Roberts and PC Hart.

6. Roberts said that on 20 July 2017 he was asked by D/Sgt Smith to conduct a CCTV recognition procedure with PC Hart.

7. He explained the process to her, informing her, what place the CCTV referenced and that should she recognise anyone she should state that and how she was able to do so.

8. Present were DCs Sabean, the operator and Donawa, note taker.

9. Hart identified Jahmiko Trott and answered questions Roberts contemporaneously wrote down. Those answers are in the attached forms.

10. In respect of the first viewing in Part A, entitled, to be completed before the viewing, he wrote down yes to the question whether she knew the identity of the suspect and no, to the following question whether she was given any information about the name or identity of the suspect.

11. Those two answers are prima facie contradictory and defence counsel complained that the presence of DC Donawa reasonably lead to an inference, the burden of disproval laying upon the Crown, that Hart might have been influenced by her. The answers were likewise in the viewing of the second CCTV form A.

12. It appears to me however that those notations might not have been answers given by PC Hart but were entries written down by D/Sgt Roberts likely given to him by D/Sgt Smith prior to commencement of the viewing. I think I am able to say that because of the heading of the form A which is to be filled in before the commencement of the viewing.

13. Even if I am incorrect on that point I do not at this point consider that apparent conflict to be fatal. I expect that it will be...