Maharaj and Others v The State
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Dame Julia Macur |
| Judgment Date | 11 October 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] UKPC 27 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal Nos: 0069 of 2018 and 0057 of 2019 |
[2021] UKPC 27
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lord Sales
Lord Burrows
Lady Rose
Dame Julia Macur
Privy Council Appeal Nos: 0069 of 2018 and 0057 of 2019
Privy Council
Appellants
Edward Fitzgerald QC
Amanda Clift-Matthews
Jagedo Singh
Karina Singh
Suneesh Singh
(Instructed by Simons Muirhead Burton LLP)
Respondents
Tom Poole QC
Hannah Fry
Robert Strang
(Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP)
Appellants:
(1) Michael Maharaj
(2) Damien Ramiah
(3) Seenath Ramiah
(4) Samuel Maharaj
(5) Bobby Ramiah
(6) Daniel Gopaul
(7) Richard Huggins
(8) Leslie Huggins
(9) Mark Jaikaran
Heard on 6 and 7 July 2021
On 7 August 2001 the nine appellants were convicted of the murder of Thackoor Boodram (“Boodram”) based on the evidence of one witness, Junior Grandison (“Grandison”). Subsequently, in 2011, Grandison swore a statutory declaration in which he stated that the evidence he had given at the trial of the appellants was not true. Consequently, in 2014 the President of Trinidad and Tobago referred the matter to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. At the hearing, the appellants sought to rely on the statutory declaration and other fresh evidence, including taped audio recordings in which, it was said, Grandison admitted he had given false evidence at the trial. The State adduced fresh evidence in rebuttal to the effect that Grandison's retraction of his trial evidence was unreliable. The Court of Appeal refused to admit the appellants' fresh evidence and dismissed the appeals on 16 May 2018.
The central issues in this appeal concern the admissibility of the fresh evidence of Grandison's retraction, either because it was credible evidence of his perjury or because it otherwise impeached his reliability as a witness of truth. In these circumstances, the appellants argue that the Court of Appeal ought to have admitted the evidence which inevitably undermines the safety of their convictions on one basis or another.
Boodram was kidnapped during the evening of 20 December 1997. The next day a ransom of $5m was demanded. On 30 December 1997, Boodram's severed head was recovered. A post-mortem examination concluded that the cause of death had been three gunshot wounds to the head.
The appellants and another man, Verne Pierre, were arrested for this murder at the end of March 1998 as the result of a statement provided by a man named Nigel Rajcoomar (“Rajcoomar”).
Grandison first became a witness against the appellants in July 1998. He requested the police visit him whilst he was in custody on remand for the murders of Ian George, also known as “Pigeon”, and Walter Regis and the attempted murder of Courtney Reid. Statements were taken from him on 7 and 16 July 1998 in which he described being involved in a conspiracy with the appellants to kidnap and kill Boodram.
Grandison gave evidence at the First and Second Preliminary Inquiries, broadly in line with his statements. Grandison said that sometime in July 1997 he attended a meeting at the home of Damien Ramiah, the second appellant, at which Mark Jaikaran, the ninth appellant and another man, since deceased, were also present. Grandison had gone to collect monies owed to him for a job which he said had nothing to do with the kidnapping but which he refused to reveal “on grounds it may incriminate me”. Subsequently, on the last Wednesday in December 1997, Grandison attended a meeting at which all of the appellants were present, and at which the plan to kidnap and murder Boodram was discussed.
Grandison said the plan was executed on the last Friday in December. Michael Maharaj, Damien Ramiah, Samuel Maharaj and Leslie Huggins, the first, second, fourth and eighth appellants respectively, drove off in one car to seize Boodram. Seenath Ramiah, Daniel Gopaul, Richard Huggins and Mark Jaikaran, the third, sixth, seventh and ninth appellants respectively, left in another car. Bobby Ramiah, the fifth appellant, drove off alone in a white car. Grandison followed in his own car, with his “personal driver”.
Grandison alleged that he saw Boodram lying face down on the floor of the first car, his hands and feet tethered, before he was removed to the second car and it drove off. It had been intended that Boodram would be taken to somewhere in Kandahar in Tacarigua District. Grandsion did not go to the spot where Boodram had been taken. He saw that Michael Maharaj, Damien Ramiah and Samuel Maharaj all had guns. Grandison and his personal driver drove away. Grandison said that, as he was wanted for murder, he was reluctant to take a “front line scene”.
Grandison gave himself up to the police on 28 February 1998 in connection with the other offences with which he was charged. His girlfriend had been killed on 26 February 1998 in a police shoot out. He said that he did not communicate with any of the appellants after the night of the kidnapping until they were in prison. He had heard in the news that Boodram's head had been found and who had been charged for the offence.
In April 1998, although he initially said June 1998, Grandison saw Michael Maharaj, Damien Ramiah and Seenath Ramiah in prison. Damien Ramiah made admissions about shooting Boodram in his face and head. Grandison said that Damien Ramiah promised to give him $60,000 from money which was being extorted from Boodram's brother Motie. Motie was in the same cell block as Grandison.
Rajcoomar and Grandison gave evidence. The two accounts contained irreconcilable differences. Grandison said that he did not know Rajcoomar and that Rajcoomar was not there on the night of the kidnapping. The prosecution indicated to the presiding magistrate that it relied primarily on the evidence of Rajcoomar. However, all the appellants and Verne Pierre were committed for trial by the magistrate on the basis of both witnesses' evidence.
In October 1999, Hail Selassie Amoroso (“Amoroso”) took police to a forest area in Sangre Grande where he said his first cousin, Phillip, had killed Boodram. He did not allege that any of the other appellants were present at the shooting. The only appellant mentioned at all in his account was Leslie Huggins, although he claimed he knew Michael Maharaj, Damien Ramiah and Seenath Ramiah. Amoroso received immunity from prosecution in respect of the murder of Boodram in return for his testimony.
Phillip was arrested on 4 November 1999 and interviewed. He said that he, Richard Huggins and another man kidnapped Boodram, on the instructions of Leslie Huggins, and some of the other appellants were also involved. He said it was Leslie Huggins who shot Boodram three times in the head. He later repudiated the statement when he gave oral evidence, stating that he was tricked into signing it. The prosecution relied upon Grandison's account of the kidnapping and murder to refute Phillip's account of the kidnapping.
Phillip was committed for trial and his case joined with that of the appellants.
Rajcoomar had been granted immunity from prosecution in June 1998. On 1 May 2000, the prosecution indicated that the evidence of Rajcoomar was unworthy of belief and no longer relied upon. Proceedings against Verne Pierre were discontinued.
The appellants' and Phillip's trial took place between 20 June and 7 August 2001. The prosecution's case was that the ten co-defendants had been part of a joint enterprise.
Grandison was intended to be the first witness for the prosecution. He was first brought to court from custody to give evidence on 27 June 2001 but told the judge he had a headache and was too sick to give evidence. Grandison was brought before the court again on 2 July 2001. This time he affirmed and gave evidence which was largely consistent with what he had given in the First Preliminary Inquiry.
Grandison gave evidence that he was in custody awaiting trial for a number of offences and that he had not been granted immunity from prosecution. There were 11 charges outstanding, including murder and attempted murder, robberies and firearms offences but he had made no bargain with the State for these charges to be dropped in return for his testimony. He had become a born-again Christian in late 1998.
Grandison identified all the appellants in the dock. He said that, whilst on remand in prison, Damien Ramiah asked him if he was a witness in the case. He had denied that he was.
Grandison was cross examined over several days about various matters including: (i) whether he had killed Pigeon; (ii) the offences against him which had been discontinued shortly before trial, and the failure to charge him for the instant offence; (iii) discrepancies in his account of the July meeting; (iv) inconsistencies in the dates when he said the kidnapping had occurred; (v) his identification of Damien Ramiah as the man who killed Boodram, when it coincided with the prosecution case; and, (vi) the existence and identity of his “personal driver”.
Grandison denied that he had killed Pigeon, although at one point he said that he had played a part in Pigeon's murder and, at another, that he would confess his role in Pigeon's murder “if it reached to that […] but that will include [Seenath and Bobby Ramiah] and his mother”. He confirmed that the charge against him for Pigeon's murder had been discontinued on 7 June 2001 and the charge of attempted murder of a witness to the murder, was also discontinued on 15 June 2001. He denied that this was in return for his testimony in this case. He said that he did not know why he had not been charged with Boodram's murder.
In cross-examination he changed his evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jerome Dixon v R
...Appeal No 85/1994, judgment delivered 24 October 2008 relying on R v Pendleton). Further clarity has also been given by the JCPC in Maharaj v The State [2021] UKPC 27 on the issue of whether the fresh evidence renders the conviction unsafe and the approach the court may take in that assess......
-
Omar Anderson v R
...conviction, and, in our view, would not have affected the ultimate decision arrived at by the judge (the jury impact test set out in Maharaj v The State [2021] UKPC 27). Its production or non-production at this stage, takes the case no further one way or the 54 For a more in-depth assessme......
-
Rayon Williams v R
...to the test for the admission of fresh evidence in section 28 of JAJA. He also placed heavy reliance on the Privy Council case of Maharaj and others v The State [2021] UKPC 27, particularly paras. 67 to 69, which, he submitted, introduced a new two-stage test for determining whether it is ......
-
R v Profeit,
...to approvingly by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Maharaj & Ors v The State (Trinidad and Tobago), (October 11, 2021) [2021] UKPC 27, albeit in the context of the credibility (cogency) factor amongst four factors initially set out in R v Parks, [1961] 1 WLR 1484. The Park......