DOWN MEMORY LANE
The Guy Pool trial
At this stage of the trial the Attorney General Mr. O’Brien Quinn is delivering his arguments as to why the court should accept Guy Pool’s confession as evidence. Mr. Quinn contended that all the defense witnesses were lying since most of their evidence could not be corroborated or that they changed them under cross-examination. He said that when Guy Pool in his confession explained how he placed the bomb he said so in details, which only he could have known. The court also heard the arguments of defense counsel Mr. Kapila.
Witness Denousse – he was there at the time in the cell. He heard nothing, no scream. Later on he goes back and said he did hear a shout and not a scream. He then comes out with information that he had been approached by Philibert Loizeau to say he heard a scream. He was offered a bribe, given drinks and treated well. Must be considered by Your Lordship when weighing his evidence. He is a witness who was approached to change his evidence. First he heard nothing, then he heard a shout and in cross-examination he heard a scream. His evidence can’t be discounted completely. Hallsbury Vol. 15 3rd edition p.446 para. 805. He was not treated as hostile. He was treated in 3rd method i.e. by calling other witnesses to contradict what he said. That it why P.C. Kilindo and Jean were called.
Phipson 9th edition. Chapter 41 – cross-examination p.494 – contradicting witness when not adverse.
Denousse – when weighing his evidence, Your Lordship must take into account evidence of Kilindo and Jean.
Evidence of Athanasius – his demeanour in box is not one of witness of truth. He said scream went on for 3 – 4 minutes. Then he said it was series of screams, shouts and means. He changes his evidence as he goes along. The scream which he said was frightening, yet he made no complaint about it. He says it came from police station. In cross-examination he says it came from that direction or it could have come from beyond the station. He lives at 60 – 100yds from station. Desnousse said it was not very loud. Police officer in station heard nothing. Athanasius lives above night club. Possible that noise came from there. Your Lordship can use knowledge of local condition.
I submit 2 witnesses Bastienne and Athanasius are not to be believed. Bastienne – because owner of night club said he was not there. There were hardly any people there that night. He said Claude Savy was there. Mr. Martinez said no. Claude Savy shown to
Evidence of Wen Yam, Stravens and Ashford corroborated by that of the doctor, Mr. Goodchild, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Lau Tee, P.C. Kilindo and P.C. Jean.
What Your Lordship is asked by accused to do is to believe police force from an officer of 7 months’ service up to the commissioner.
Evidence of accused. He knew the contents of confession and so did counsel. It was given to them by order of Justice Sauzier – mid. Or end August. Defence had Photostat copies of the statement at an early stage. Prosecution also provide defence with a summary of the evidence which it intended to produce. All that long before case started.
Accused asked in cross-examination whether he was carrying an envelope that morning and he said he was and it contained his statement. He said he had read it the night before. He admitted that he had been adding to his statement and evidence as case went on. P.161 typed script. He would have court believe that a typed made-up statement was given to him which police wanted him to sign and it contained evidence which police wanted him to agree to. Not his statement at all. This was not put up as objection to the admissibility of statement at all. P.104 and 105.
Accused said the statement was made by police and he was asked to make certain changes in it. If this was so, when Your Lordship looks at statement, a lot of it the police could not know. Defence said accused never refer to Mr. Rene as Albert Rene. Why would police make a statement like that. Unlikely police would put Albert Rene, they would put Mr. Rene. Officials usually refer to senior officers as “Mr” or they would refer to him as Rene. If police had made up the statement they would not have put all the small details. Police would have got down to brass fact. Statement is completely what the man would say himself. Police could not know. The statement is detailed and contains personal details.
If police were making up statement they would say Harry Bonte and not Bonte. He talks of a man called Flake Vidot. Why should police mention “Flake”when police did not know who Flake was. They would already have arrested Flake. They went out and arrested Rene Vidot and later on arrested Claude Vidot in trying to know who Flake was.
Defence has a copy of the experts. They had it at time these people gave evidence. In that it says he thought it was aluminum and one said it was aluminum, zinc etc. My friend in cross-examination asked if police had their statement before July and they said yes they had sent it in March. Defence wants Court to believe that police used the experts statements to make up the statement for accused to sign. Where did accused get the statement about Japanese aluminium buoy, surely not from the police. What is a Japanese aluminium buoy? The experts said they would not say what was in the explosive they said 2 - 2½ lbs explosive of the gelignite type. Statement mentions 3 big sticks of gelignite and 10 smaller sticks. This was known to accused and his accomplices Flake, Albert Rene and Bonte. The fact that smell of gelignite cause him to faint is only known by accused himself. Defence suggests police made that sentence to try and say that accused did not see how the bomb was made. There was no need for police to put that in.
If someone is weak, he is given something to drink and the statement says that he was given orange to drink. Defence in evidence said the police did so to make the judge believe that he was drugged in the orange. Accused said so. He would have us believe the reason he made that statement was because he was going to plead guilty and let go. Why mention a judge at all. There two points are incompatible. Accused’s story in witness box is not true. The statement given to the police is the truth. Defence sees it and tries to destroy it. This shows the falsity of the issue of lies put up by accused. This evidence of accused is built on falsity. His story is untrue.
If police wanted to put Flake in they would not have said that Flake went in the woods with the bag. They would have said that Flake was there when the bomb was planted. Your Lordship can see that when accused comes to how he places the bomb he says so in details. Experts did not know how the bomb got up there. Accused said in statement that Bonte dropped him off at hotel – matter only known to himself. Bonte was arrested after accused gave his statement. If police knew they would have arrested Bonte before. Guy and Daphne Pool were not arrested until Stanley Hermitte gave his statement on 28th July in the evening. Accused and Daphne were arrested on 29th. After accused’s statement, Bonte was arrested and Rene Vidot is arrested. Police found out Rene was not the Flake mentioned and they arrested Claude Vidot.
Accused said he lit fuse on steps and threw the bag in the upper story. He was the only person there. Bonte had left. Accused knew the layout of hotel. He worked there as a security guard Expert said a bag could have been thrown. They had no way of knowing. Accused volunteers the information. He lit fuse with his cigarette. The expert said it must have been a short fuse. The logical thing would have been to place it and run. Accused threw it and then he got frightened and went to Daphne’s.
Hermitte said accused had said that he went by Ratnan’s shop, Orangine etc. Police knew this and they would have put that part in accused statement. Your Lordship not called upon to rule on the truth of the statement but only if it is a voluntary one. Voluntary not necessarily true. If defence asks Your Lordship to believe the police built in around Hermitte’s statement I submit it is not true. Accused’s statement that he was so frightened when he heard the bang that he fell down. He was the only person there. Then he got up and went to Daphne. He said he then told Daphne he was scared and that Albert Rene has sent him to put the bomb at Reef Hotel. Not one mention of Albert Rene in Hermitte’s statement. Mr. Rene came to the station to see accused as a counsel. Hermitte said that accused told them he had baised the hotel with a bomb. Nothing in Hermitte’s statement that Daphne had asked him to accompany accused home but accused mentioned this in his statement. Every thing in accused’s statement is all the details that were on his own mind at the time. Now he is trying to tell the court that it is the police who corrected the statement. He said that he slept on a rock outside and when he got in his house he told his mother he had been to a dance at Bay Lazare. In court he said so to fit in with his mother’s statement that he had come home at 6.30 a.m. Typical statement of a man who in unburdening himself, and is making a clean breast of it. If police were trying to get Mr. Rene as defence alleged then why was the last paragraph put in the statement. If police were out to get Mr. Rene that last paragraph would be superfluous, it would ruin their case. The statement of accused is merely that of a man who is getting it off his chest. Defence says the purpose was to try and get Mr. Rene. Confession is evidence against the maker and one else. Police knows that.
Hermitte gave statement after consulting Laporte. He told the police he was afraid and he was put in security. On his statement the accused is arrested and he also makes a statement. He does so after he has seen two lawyers, Mr. Rene and Mr. Valabhji. He did not give the statement on 29th when he was arrested. He saw Mr. Rene on 29th. On Monday accused is taken to court and Mr. Valabhji represents him. Police wrote and phone Mr. Valabhji whenever accused wanted to see him. Accused was not forced to make a statement. Defence cannot expect the court to believe that.
On Hermitte’s statements the name of Rene was not used at all, not in any form. Daphne said she made her statement after she had been shown Hermitte’s statement. At no stage in her evidence was she asked to implicate Mr. Rene by any police officer. Miss Stravens wanted her to follow Hermitte’s statement. In Daphne’s statement she said “Guy told me not to make any noise and that he had placed the bomb at the hotel”. I asked him where he had got the bomb and he told me that Mr. Rene had given it to him and at that moment
I submit her evidence in the box is untrue. Her statement to the police is the truth. When she was asked about seeing Mr. Kapila and Mr. Rene on 13th September she said she could not remember. When Your Lordship said she could surely remember last Wednesday she said she had not seen the lawyers. Daphne was a well schooled witness. When asked why she did not complain or whenever her answer could have been yes or no, she volunteers a reason, the same one right through.
If she had let out the scream everyone in the station would have heard. I submit she did not scream at all. If she had been beaten the doctor would have seen and so would have Mr. Fenner and Mr. Goodchild. Mr. Goodchild took every step to assist accused. He saw no sign of distress or of recent weeping of Daphne.
A person facing another can only slap a person hard on the left side of the face. With his right hand. If he uses his left hand he can slap on the right side of the face. If he uses right hand, he’d slap with the back of the hand the right side of the face. In examination she said she was sitting and answer to Your Lordship she said she was standing.
Your Lordship can only come to one conclusion. Said by accused that Ashford told him that when he goes to prison to write a letter through Supt. of prisons. This is carrying it a bit too far to suggest that a police officer was still having a hold on accused, when he was at the prisons. Why was it necessary for Ashford to tell the accused to write this letter. While they were in the cells and before they left for the prisons, the police had looked into all their complaints. The letter Exhibit AA was written by accused himself. It was not dictated to him. He wrote this letter because this is what he wanted to convey. It was his own idea. Mr. Hoareau will give the background to this letter. The accused was away from Mr. Ashford at the time he wrote the letter. He asks security from Mr. Ashford . Mr. Ashford gave evidence that accused like him and always got him to carry out his wishes. This was not challenged in cross-examination. Accused is asking for security for his wife and himself. I submit the letter has nothing to do with Mr. Ashford. It was written to Mr. Hoareau in the latter’s presence. Accused was once a Prison Warder and worked under Mr. Hoareau. Defence had the letter and tried to destroy its value. This is a letter which accused wrote because he wanted that just like the confession was twisted around, likewise the letter has been twisted around and the cart put before the horse. What further evidence did Mr. Ashford need. The confession was there. The letter was given to defence, before court proceedings started.
Accused was in prison and he called Mr. Hoareau. He said in evidence he spoke to Mr. Hoareau for 5 – 10 minutes and then he wrote this letter. When this is given to defence before case starts and the confession they say these are detrimental to our case and they must exclude them. They say the police made up the confession. Efforts of defence to exclude confession fall down. Defence wants to exclude letter and they allege Ashford told accused the he was to write it when he got to the prison. Contents of this letter will be dealt with in other trial within a trial if it arises. Your Lordship should not look at this stage. Court does not have evidence as to circumstances in which the letter was given. It will change aspect of the document. It only went in as evidence that accused wrote it. Your Lordship cannot look at it to decide. This took place a long time after and not in presence of witnesses, Ashford, Wen Yam and Stravens. On its face value accused writes a letter to Supt. of prisons and asks to see Mr. Ashford. Mr. Hoareau will be called after this trial within a trial. Letter should not have gone in at all.
Judges’ Rules - Rule 4 was complied with para. 1120 – Archbold - -by Wen Yam and Stravens. If Your Lordship feels there might be any weakness I will refer to – All England Law Reports R v Prages – 1972 – 1 All E.R. p.114.
Evidence of Rene Vidot is not to be believed. His demeanour in box is of a person who is not to be believed. He has not been telling the truth. I put a string of p.c. to Claude Vidot. He admitted one for violence and said he used violence on Wen Yam which this latter denied. He also alleged something scandulous against Miss Stravens. He is not worthy of belief.
34 Cr. Appeal Reports. R. O’neill and Ackers – p.108.
Claude Vidot went further and attacked morality of a police woman. This type of defence is used in this case, that whole police force is in one combination to try and get Mr. Rene when he is not even charged. The accused is charged. My friend did not follow laws of evidence.
Phipson – 9th edition p.497 omission to cross-examination.
Your Lordship is not asked at this stage if confession is true. It is only whether it was a voluntary statement. I submit it is voluntary and should be admitted.
A.G.: I reserve my right to answer on question of law if raised by by friend.
Mr. Kapila: My friend began by saying that onus on issue of voluntariness was upon Crown. To that extent we are on common ground. But on conclusion he said there was a certain onus on defence. I submit there’s nothing in decision cited by him to support this.
I propose to deal with law at the end of my address. Law with regard to confessions stated clearly in cross on evidence p.445 onwards. Case of Thompson – 1891 – 94 All E.R. p376. PRIVY COUNCIL – 1955 Kamma Kanin v. R. 1955 22 E.A.C.A. p.364.
Prosecution set about trying to conduct the sub trial without producing document or discussing its contents in 1st place. This was unusual but as Your Lordship will see they had excellent reasons for adopting those tactics. As case developed and half way through case they changed their mind and it resulted in course that the subtrial took in the serious of recalls and re-cross-examination and re-examinations. Your Lordship will notice that even then prosecution has not cross-examined accused on contents of the document. Not a single question had been put to accused on a single line of document. They first kept document out. All witnesses spoke of piece of paper which was not even marked for indentification. I called accused in witness box to produce the letter which he gave to Mr. Hoareau, the contents of which are significant and I submit admissible and material in the sub trial to decide the admissibility of the document. When I called accused to produce the letter, which was given to us with the greatest reluctance, it was only then that the A.G. put the confession to accused and asked him if it was the document he signed. Having put it to him he did not ask accused a single question about the document. Document was put to witness, it was marked and the A.G. sat down. Partly reason that sub trial has taken a long time. The statement is the core of prosecution.
Appreciated by prosecution that rest of case is negligible - on one evidence of Stanley Hermitte.
Yours Lordship will not be able to exclude it from evidence, later once it is admitted. Your Lordship can disregard it as part of the evidence on which prosecution is relying. Even if admitted there will be left a retracted confession.
I would if necessary pitch my submission higher that I need to on question of onus and submit it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt or a least on balance of probabilities that if there were any onus on defence that it is not a voluntary confession.
Circumstance on which it was obtained. I ask Your Lordship not to take any partial circumstances in isolation. Your Lordship should pose the question whether circumstances do not in their totality give rise to an inevitable suspicion of involuntariness. On evidence as it stands I submit it is impossible to say at the end that there is not lingering doubt in mind of court that confession was free or voluntary.
1st circumstances is time at which it was taken. Common ground that it was about 3.40 a.m. wealth of authority dealing with this factor where judges have begun to express uneasiness about spontaneity of confession from this factor alone. Comments of very wide variety. At that time the faculties of a person are not at their best. It is a time which is suggested that exercise is not an open one as being carried out in broad light of day. In this case significant that this is a peculiar common feature of all incriminating statement. The attempts to obtain statements were all made at a time which must make the court look askance at procedure adopted. Even Mr. Vidot who had the gun shown at him to resist threats. Prosecution itself revealed he was called at 12 o’clock from his cell to the office to be asked one question again. Uncooperative individual who refused to answer question and he is brought up again at 12.30 from his cell. Activities between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. relating to interrogation of those people. Normal hours when offices are opened.
2nd circumstances is the place. It is highly significant in this case. The spontaneous confession when accused unburdened himself of the weight that had rested upon him for months in the night of 31st/1st August followed fairly strong argument in court the day before when accused counsel attempted unsuccessfully to wrench away his client from clutches of this particular officer, the great protector and friend who was the prosecution in court. Accused counsel asked for him to be put in prison. Reason for resisting this application. My friend seems to say that when Ashford says in court is a stone wall.
Accused said I do not want to give me back to the police station, don’t hand me back this friend of mine. What were the reasons for opposing appliation. P.87 typed script. This is a departure from the normal procedure. Has asked for special permission for accused to be kept at police station. It was opposed by Mr. Valabhji. Not clear whether he means safe from the fact that they can’t escape. He said he could not remember his exact words at the Magistrates’ Court. He has ability of becoming rather vague when he want to. P.107 typed script – Mr. Wen Yam – here is a situation where a prosecutor is showing greater concern for lives of Mr. Valabhji’s lives than the accused themselves. He is worried for their lives and protection.
3rd circumstances is that accused was at that time represented by counsel – fact known to police. There had been a rush in court, counsel and prosecution did not see eye to eye in detention of accused. No attempt made to contact the advocate even to say to accused you are represented do you want your counsel present or contacted. Only individual who knows some concern is Mr. Lau Tee. His reaction according to his evidence when accused said he wanted to see the investigations officer said “can’t you wait until the morning”. Other was of Lau Tee’ evidence where he found he had no alternative but to comply in certain respects to the pressures to which he must be subjected.
Situation transparent to the mind of anyone who has listened to the case. It is a solemn duty we are stuck with and no other considerations must come in.
Police knew he was represented by counsel. No independent witness to the confession. They are all police officers. More often than not they are permutations of that little click. By the time one reaches this point there is already a back drop of abnormality in taking statement.
Prosecution say that accused developed a sudden spontaneous desire to see Ashford at 2.30. Mr. Lau Tee a creole would not do. He wants Ashford who will need an interpreter and he wants the same Ashford who that very morning has contested his counsel’s attempt not to hand accused to him. Improbability of commencement of statement. Nothing that has happened since that morning to show mutual confidence. One case where Mr. Ashford under rates court’s intelligence. Since February Government is offering rewards, then bulletins and radio full of it but what does Mr. Ashford say at p.80 “I have not been as closely involved in inquiry as one might expect”. He makes a routine check of the cell at 12.05. He has had no conversation with accused since that morning. From 12.30 approximately until 3.40 Ashford is walking around
Number of interesting features about this evidence. Your Lordship will note that these words do not necessarily suggest that a confession is going to be made. They could have given a rehash of what they had said before. Their conduct following theses words is very curious. The almost exact identity of word and identical time. Lau Tee said 2.30 a.m. Jean had said earlier that this was about 2 hours later after 12.05 – 12.10. At p.142 he clarifies what he meant. Ref.2 last questions and answers on p.142. He leaves the time at 00.05 which is the time Mr. Ashford gave. P.143 – in statement he corroborated Lau Tee. When Ashford returned it was about 3.40. An officer on routine duty and he looks at his watch each time Mr. Ashford passes him. He is interviewed by 1st time on 12th September. He tells us exact times which Mr. Ashford and Lau Tee mentioned.