Nigel Hughes again showed his hands as a crooked lawyer by failing to bring to the court's notice that he had an insider in the jury that released the accused.
Jury foreman in Lusignan massacre trial banned for life for nondisclosure - DPP chides Nigel Hughes for not disclosing foreman was his client, files appeal against acquittal of murder accused
Written by George Barclay Wednesday, 14 August 2013 01:40 VERNON Griffith, the jury foreman in the Lusignan massacre trial was yesterday ‘banned for life’ from sitting as a juror in this country after he failed to disclose that he was a longstanding client of the Defence Attorney in the murder case, Nigel Hughes.
Hughes was also castigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for failing to disclose that the foreman had once been his client in a big case.
This shocking development arose in the High Court yesterday before Justice Navindra Singh, who inflicted the life ban on Griffith. The DPP also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the two Lusignan murder accused.
In the presence of all the jurors yesterday, Justice Singh questioned Griffith, who explained that he did not think that his association with the lawyer was of any importance.
But the Judge told him, “You did not make a disclosure when required to do so, and inasmuch as I would have liked to cite you for contempt of court, you have escaped this because of the procedures that have to be gone through before this could take place.”
The juror was told that he was banned for life from sitting as a juror in this country.
And he was advised to get in touch with the Registrar in the event of his change of address, so that there would be no chance of him being chosen as a juror.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is the appellant in the appeals versus accused Mark Royden Williams, called ‘Smallie, and James Anthony Hyles, called ‘Sally’, who are
accused of killing 11 persons during the Lusignan massacre.
According to the grounds of appeal, there was a material irregularity in that:
Defence Attorney Nigel Hughes for the number two accused, James Anthony Hyles, called Sally, failed to disclose to the learned trial judge that he had represented the foreman, Mr. Vernon Griffith, for six (6) years in action number 806-W 2002 –Vernon Griffith vs- NBIC (now Republic Bank) – which was concluded on 29th October, 2008 before the Honourable Chief Justice (Ag.) Mr. Ian Chang. (A certified copy of the said action and decision by the Honourable Chief Justice was attached).
That the Foreman, Mr. Vernon Griffith, failed to disclose to the learned trial judge that Mr Nigel Hughes, Defence Attorney for the number two accused, was also his attorney and had represented him for six (6) years in action number 806-W 2002 –Vernon Griffith vs. NBIC- which was concluded on 29th October 2008 before the Honourable Chief Justice.
That this non-disclosure by the Defence Attorney for the number 2 accused and Mr. Vernon Griffith is material and significant, given the fact that at the commencement of the trial on 15th July, 2013, before the jury was selected and empanelled, the learned trial judge had specifically called out the names of all of the attorneys involved in the case, and had told the entire panel that if they know or are associated with any of the attorneys, they ought to so indicate and they would be excused. Both Mr. Nigel Hughes and the Foreman remained silent.
Further, prospective jurors, including Mr. Vernon Griffith, were questioned at length by both Defence Attorneys prior to the final twelve (12) being sworn in. Many of those jurors who were questioned were challenged for cause, but Mr. Griffith was not. When the final 12 were sworn in and the Registrar told them to consult among themselves and choose a foreperson, without hesitation or without consultation with the others, Mr Vernon Griffith, who was in the number 3 position, immediately got up and took the foreman’s position at number one.
The fiduciary relationship that existed between Mr. Nigel Hughes and the foreman was disclosed immediately after the verdict was delivered on August 2, 2013 by Mr. Nujomo Bryan and Sergeant Wishart, Clerk and Court Orderly respectively, to the Chief Justice (Ag.), who informed the learned trial judge that he recognised the Foreman as Mr. Hughes’s client.
The learned trial judge erred in law when he acceded to an application by Mr. Nigel Hughes, Defence Counsel for the number 2 accused, for a voir dire to be held to allow the prospective jurors to be questioned to ascertain whether or not they have a particular bias, when there is no provision in the law for this.
The learned trial judge failed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether there was a connection/relationship between the number 12 juror, Mr. Compton Elgin, and the number 2 accused, James Anthony Hyles, called ‘Sally’, despite the fact that a complaint was made by counsel for the prosecution, Mrs. Judith Gildharie-Mursalin, in the presence of both Defence Attorneys, Mr. Roger Yearwood and Mr. Nigel Hughes, that Mr. Compton Elgin was seen in conversation with a man, and it was observed that Mr. Elgin had shown the said man the thumbs up sign with both hands. The man was subsequently identified as the father of the number two accused.
The learned trial judge erred in law when he granted bail to the number two accused, James Anthony Hyles, called ‘Sally’, on 2nd August 2013, following the verdict of acquittal, and the State’s service of its Notice of Intention to Appeal, both orally and in writing, in accordance with Section 33C (1) of the Court of Appeal Act, Chapter 3:01, as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Act Number 4 of 2010, by interpreting an ‘Appeal’ to exclude a ‘Notice of Intention to Appeal.
The learned trial judge erred in law in that he excluded material evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution, to wit, seventy-six photographs depicting the locus in quo and the victims, on the ground that they would evoke emotional response in the jury.
