Down Memory Lane
The trial started in July 1972 and lasted for several months. The presiding judge was Chief Justice Sir Georges Souyave. Mr. Guy Pool was represented by a brilliant Kenyan attorney, Mr. Kapila co-counsel to Mr. Valabhji. Mr. Kapila made his name in the trial of Jomo Kenyatta where he appeared as junior Counsel. Mr. Grimett appeared for the Crown and conducted the case for the Prosecution. Mr. O’Brien Queen was the Attorney General at the time and he was subsequently arrested and deported from
The Guy Pool trial
In its last few issues Le Nouveau Seychelles Weekly published the two statements given by Guy Pool to the police after his arrest. Both statements were admitted by the Courts as exhibits. In his statements Guy Pool raised an alibi defence by claiming that he was at a dance at the Baie Lazare Social Centre at the time of the explosion, when asked about his whereabouts on the night of the explosion at Reef Hotel by the police. The Prosecution called several witnesses to refute Guy Pool’s alibi by showing to the Court that Guy Pool was in fact not telling the truth in his statements to the police. Last week we ended with the evidence of the Prosecution’s star witness namely:
Mr. Stanley Hermitte
This week we look at the testimony of another Prosecution witness namely, Inspector David Ashford. David Ashford admitted that he had mistakenly arrested Pti Claude Vidot instead off his brother Flake Vidot.
After the submission of Mr. Kapila that the statement of the prosecution was seeking to produce was inadmissible, the trial continued with the Attorney-General replying:
A.G : I ask Your Lordship to look at paragraph 1119 Archbold 3(a) & (b) 3 (a) witness Ashford was charging accused under caution and he used the caution as stated in Archbold 3 (b) No questions were put by Mr. Ashford.
R.v. Prager 1972 1 A.E.R.p. 1114 Ref. Rule 5 – Archbold.
Accused and witnessing officer signed the accused’s reply. Nowhere in Rule 3 is it said that the recording officer must also sign.
Mr. Kapila : My friend’s contention is (1) once a person has been charged the rule protecting him is narrower than the rule protecting a person who has not been charged, it’s prima facie. He suggests that only rule 3 applies after a person has been charged. Ref. Rule 4 “all written statements after caution…..” which caution. It is that in Rule 3.
(2) that if accused says “I want to make a statement” certain consequences flow. He suggests that if the accused goes on making a statement the provision does not follow. This is unconceivable. In other words if someone is not familiar with the rules and does not say that he wishes to make a statement but starts making one, he is not given the option found in Rule 4.
Pros. seeking to put in written statement. All statements will be verbal statements and the fact that the officers wrote them down, my friend does not consider them to be written statements. The moment a statement is reduced to writing it is a written statement.
(3) My friend’s contention that Judges’ rules do not have the effect of law. He should have said so when I first objected. Insp. Ashford gave a caution to accused and then failed to give accused to write whatever he wished in his own writing, failed to write what the accused wanted him to write, failed to obtain the accused’s signature to that statement and failing to put his own signature. My friend refers to confession. He must make it clear that there was no confession. Prosecution has failed to discharge their onus of satisfying the court. Ruling: Under the circumstances deponed to by Insp. Ashford I am of the opinion that Rule IV applies. Hence as he has not complied with Rule IV which contains certain rules so as to make it sure that the statement taken is voluntary I hold for the reason of noncompliance with Rule IV that this statement should be excluded in breach of the said rule and also on the ground that I find it unsafe to hold it admissible on the ground that although in breach of that rule it is voluntary.
P.W. 12 Inspector David Ashford (sworn)
After the accused was charged he was taken to the Magistrate’s Court where he was remanded in custody for 14 days and he was taken back to the police station.
About 3.40 a.m. on Tuesday 1st August I was at the Central Police Station accompanied by Det. P.C. Wen Yam and Det. W.P.C Stravens when I met Insp. Lau Tee. As a result of what Lau Tee told me I went to the cells where I spoke to the accused. Miss Stravens was with me when I spoke to the accused. I said to him “I understand you wish to make a statement. I want you to understand that you are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you do say may be put in writing and given in evidence”. He replied: “I want to see my sister”. I did not write this down there and then. I wrote it down sometime later. I went with the accused to the cell of his sister Daphne. I took accused from his cell and took him to Daphne’s cell. The cells are in a row. She was 2 cells away from him. I said the same thing to Daphne in the presence of accused. Daphne said something to me. I left Daphne and accused together and walked back up the cell. Miss Stravens stayed with accused and Daphne. They stayed together about a minute. I then took both of them out of the cell, outside through the courtyard and upstairs to my office. On the way, in the courtyard, I met Det. P.C. Wen Yam. I said to him to come with me to record a statement. At my office, I left Daphne sitting in my secretary’s office which adjoins my office and I instructed Wen Yam to record a statement from the accused. I explained to him how it was to be done and I instructed that Miss Stravens remain and witness the recording of the statement. This all happened within minutes, it was about 3.45 a.m. I suppose. I then left that office and went to Lau Tee who was now in the control room which is fairly close to my office. I instructed Lau Tee that I wished him to record a statement from Daphne and that he should find a policewoman to witness it. I waited for the policewoman to arrive and when she arrived I instructed Lau Tee to go to a more suitable office to record the statement. I remained at the station. I went home about 7.45a.m.
During the recording of the statements I walked up and down and I walked around. I went in the office about twice. I think to collect a book. I didn’t visit Daphne at all. When I arrived at the station the accused was in his cell. He did not make any complaint to me. During the time I was at the station neither he nor Daphne made any complaint to me. I had seen accused and Daphne about 12.05 just after midnight. After I had handed the accused to P.C Wen Yam he did not speak to me. I had nothing more to do with him.
I arrived in
xxd :
Q. You said you executed a search warrant on accused’s mother’s property?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you take anything from them?
A.No nothing was found whatsoever.
Q. You said to accused “I am making inquiries in the explosion which occurred at Reef Hotel on Monday 14th February, 1972?
A. Yes?
Q. “I am in possession of a search warrant to search your mother’s property?
A. Yes.
Q. “I have reason to believe that you know something concerning this explosion?
A. Yes.
Q. “And I am arresting you”?
A. Yes.
Q. “You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but what you say may be put in writing and given in evidence”?
A. Yes.
Q. When you said that you had not yet executed the search warrant?
A. I’d already started but I had not completed it.
Q. You arrested him before you had completed the search?
A. Yes.
Q. And you arrested him before you had completed your inquiries?
A. Yes.
Q. And you arrested him before you had ascertained what he knew concerning the explosion?
A. Yes.
Q. In response to your caution he did not say anything?
A. He did not say anything.
Q. Is this your normal procedure?
A. Cases vary so much. It all depends on evidence available to me.
Q. Did you arrest Claude Vidot?
A. Yes.
Q. On what date?
A. As far as I recollect it was Thursday 3rd. I am speaking from memory. It was about 10 p.m.
Q. What was the evidence available to you then?
A.G : I object on 2 grounds (1) police can’t be forced to disclose source of information (2) the source may be as statement which is inadmissible.
For (1) Archbold para 1346.
Mr. Kapila : The objection originally came from the court. I am not asking witness for source of information. I only asked him what was the evidence available to him when he arrested that man. All these series of arrests are related to this case.
Q. What was the evidence available to you when you arrested Claude Vidot?
A. I was in possession of certain statements.
Q. From whom?
A.G : I object on former grounds.
Mr. Kapila : I leave the question for the moment.
Q. You detained the accused at the police station?
A. On the 1st day, yes.
Q. Initially at Anse Aux Pins Police Station?
A. Yes.
Q. Similarly Daphne Pool?
A.Yes.
Q. You took them to police H.Q. that night?
A. That evening. The arrived at the station at 6 p.m., that was on a Saturday. I kept them there until Monday morning. I then took them to the Magistrate’s Court where they were charged. Pleas were not taken. I conducted the prosecution and I asked to appear before the Magistrate at the end of 14 days. I asked for special permission for him to be kept in custody at Central Police Station. This was opposed by Mr.Valabhje for the defense.
Q. You gave as your reason for not keeping them at the prison that there was insufficient security at the prison?
A. I can’t recollect my exact words but I suggested that they would be safer at the police station than at the prison. I had arrested accused on ground of violence. There had been acts of violence in the last 2 years and I wanted to ensure the safety of my prisoners.
Q. Defence counsel was asking for them to be remand at the prison?
A. Yes. I have rarely visited the prison but I knew they would be in safe custody at the police station.
Q. Safe from you at the police station?
Q. Are you aware that the Magistrate had no power to remand them for 14 days to appear before him?
A. At that time I was not aware. I’m still not too clear on the procedure for certain cases and we have difficulties.
Q. Are your familiar with S.76(b) of the C.P.C?
A. I’m not.
Q. Were you aware at the time the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case?
A. No. I don’t think I even considered it at that stage.
Q. Why didn’t you ask for a plea to be taken?
A. I was acting under instructions from the A.G. I had sought advice. I was merely instructed and advised to take down before the Magistrate.
Q. You were not told that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction?
A. I don’t think the question was even raised.
Q. Were you told not to have the plea taken?
A. I think I was advised not to have a plea taken. As I recollect I asked the Magistrate myself not to take a plea.
Q. Have a look at S.76 (b) (3) (Witness reads it out)?
Q. Do you now know that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction?
A. I imagine so. I am not a trained lawyer. The Magistrate granted my application. It was Magistrate Mr. Wood. Mr. Wood has been in the
Q. From Monday you had the prisoners safely at the police station for 14 days?
A. As a result of that application yes.
Q. Were they kept apart?
A. Not all the time. Sometimes they were alone in their cells and sometimes they were outside in the courtyard. In fact they were kept there for only 8 days. I saw them talking together. For the 3 or 4 days they were kept apart.
Q. At 3.40 a.m. on Tuesday you were at the station?
A.Yes.
Q. How did you happen to be there at 3.40 a.m.?
A. I had been out on duty and I came back to the station from duty. I came back of my own free will. I was not called for.
Q. Which duty?
A. I’d been making inquiries and keeping observations in
Q. You normally go to the station at 3.40 a.m.?
A. I have been but I would not say it was usual.
Q. What was the particular urge on that morning?
A. I had completed what I had gone out to do and had come back to the station. It was in the course of my duty that I was there.
Q. What time do the C.I.D. go off duty at the police station?
A. We don’t work a normal shift system or stick to hours.
Q. What had caused Mr. Wen Yam to be at the station at 3.40 a.m.?
A. He had gone out on duty with me and had come back with me and so had Miss Stravens. Mr Lau Tee was the duty officer at the station at 3.30 a.m.
Q. Is Mr. Lau Tee a senior police officer?
A. Yes. He has 12½ to 13 years service. I think he speaks creole. I speak only a few creol words. Lau Tee gave me certain information as a result of which I went to accused’s cell with Miss Stravens. Mr Lau Tee did not come with us. I said to accused “I understand you wish to make a statement”. I cautioned him. Mr. Lau Tee did not report that he had taken any statement from accused. I didn’t take a statement to accused. I dedicated it to P.C. Wen Yam. He is a detective P.C. he works directly under me. He has been in the force for approximately 5 years. He is more junior than Lau Tee. I went in the office on one occasion to collect a book. It was “police questioning – Judges’ Rules” by a barrister called Osborne I think. I can get the book. It is a small hand book. I can’t remember why I walked in the office the second time. It was unusual for me to stay out of my office but I was deliberately keeping out.
Q. What time was the exercise concluded?
A. I wasn’t present when the statement was finished. It was about 6 a.m. I was still there.
Q. Why were you hanging about until 6 a.m.?
A. At that stage I was in charge of the re-opened inquiry of this offence and I thought it was my responsibility to be around. I considered recording the statement myself and decided against it because I felt it would be better that the statement be recorded in the home language of the accused.
Q. Why didn’t you ask Mr. Lau Tee to record it?
A. For a number of reasons (1) I’ve worked with Wen Yam for 2 years. He is directly under my command. He was involved in the inquiry from the start. He is an above average constable in ability and has a good sound knowledge of the Judges’ Rules. I was entirely satisfied with his ability to take the statement. Mr. Lau Tee was the duty officer. He was on 24 hour duty. He was in charge of CI.D Central and I didn’t want him to be engaged fully, if I could avoid it, on this enquiry. I needed a responsible person to carry on with the day-to-day functions of the police force. He had been advised he was about to be transferred to Praslin or La Digue. I thought he was not the practicable person to use. I found myself in a position to use him to record Daphne’s statement. I found I did not have anyone else available then.
Q. Not you?
A. For the same reason I felt Daphne should give her statement in creole. I’ve had difficulties over the years with the Judges’ Rules taking statements in English from people who do not speak English.
Q. Why couldn’t it wait until the morning?
A. It was their wish.
Q. They were both desperately anxious to give statements at 3.40 a.m.?
A. I believe they were.
Q. Was a tape recorder used at the same time?
A. Not to my knowledge. I was not there all the time and I was in the office only for seconds.
Q. During that night, at 12.05 you made a routine check of the cells?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you do that every night?
A. No but I frequently visit the cells.
Q. Did you visit the cells of accused and Daphne?
A. I went to the door of the cells.
Q. This was an important case to you?
A. I thought it was an extremely serious offence. It depends what you mean by important.
Q. You had tried very hard earlier in the year to find out a clue to this bomb incident?
A. I had very little involvement handling this investigation which was carried out by officers from Scotland Yard with some assistance from me and my men. The Scotland Yard Officers arrived about 10 days after the bomb explosion.
Q. During that night at accused’s cell did you ask him where he was during the night of 13th February?
A. No.
Q. You had no conversation with him at all?
A. Only what I’ve already told the court.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Daphne that night?
A. Only what I’ve told the court.
Q. Did you slap her?
A. No.
Q. Did you catch her hair and pushed her hard against the wall?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear her scream at any time?
A. No.
Q. Did you push the accused against a wall?
A. No.
Q. Did you go to any place called La Gigolette that night.
A. I think very early in the evening I went.
Q. Did you take the key of Guy’s cell with you when you went there?
A. No.
Q. Did you in fact come into accused’s cell with a man wearing glasses carrying a tape recorder?
A. No.
Q. In your office not the cell?
A. No I never saw a tape recorder there.
Q. Did you give a back hand slap accused’s face?
A. No.
Q. And said “remember it’s only the beginning of 14 days here”?
A. No.
Q. You remember pushing accused with your right foot, pulling him from the bed and holding him under the chin saying “are you prepared to talk or not”?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember giving a right fist blow in his belly that night?
A. No.
Q. Did you take out from your drawer a sort of belt with a small black revolver in it and pointed it at the neck of the accused?
A. No.
Q. When statement was finished did you shake hands with accused saying “I am a man of my word”, put your trust in me from now on”?
A. I wasn’t there when the statement completed.
Q. Where were you?
A. Somewhere in the police building. I can’t say exactly where I was. I imagine I was on the verandah.
Q. After the statement was completed did you shake hands with accused and saying those words?
A. No.
Q. Did you continue to see the accused over the next few days?
A. From time to time I went to the cell usually concerning the prisoner’s request.
Q. Did you have discussions with accused over that period?
A. Not concerning this case but his domestic affairs.
Q. You never discussed the evidence of this case with him?
A. No.
Q. Did you read the statement which he made that night?
A. When it was translated yes. It was a couple of hours later. I had it read over to me by the recording officer.
Q. Were you engaged in further enquiries about this case as a result of that statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any other arrests over the next 2 days?
A. Yes. I arrested one Harry Bonte and one Claude Vidot.
Q. Just 2 persons?
A. Those were the only two whom I arrested. There was another man called Rene Vidot who was arrested. He was arrested by Wen Yam. Harry Bonte I arrested on Tuesday 1st August about ¼ to 6 p.m. and Claude Vidot I arrested him on Thursday about 10 p.m. Rene Vidot was arrested about 9 p.m. on Wednesday.
Q. Was a statement taken from Harry Bonte?
A. Yes about 7 a.m. the following morning. I was not there when it was taken.
Q. Did Rene Vidot complain about you to Mr. Goodchild?
A. I understand he did.
Q. On 4th August about 9 a.m.?
A. I thought it was later.
Q. Did he complain to Mr. Goodchild that you had offered him more than Rs.50,000.—and you had given him security and a free passage to
A. That was the substance of his complaint.
Q. He said you had tried to influence him and he told you that what you were suggesting was not true?
A. I was something of that nature.
Q. Was he released soon after his arrest?
A. He was released about lunch time on Friday. He was arrested on Wednesday evening. He made the complaint on Thursday morning.
Q. On 5th August did he swear an affidavit here before the Registrar?
A. I have no idea. It’s first time I hear of it. He was released about lunch time on Friday.
Q. His complaint is not true.
A. It’s totally untrue.
Q. Do you know on what material he was arrested?
A. On statement I had in my possession and on my instructions.
Q. What made you change your mind and you released him?
A. Contained in the statement was a nickname and I did not know to whom the nickname belonged. I arrested the man whom I knew by that nickname and it was the wrong man.
Q. The nickname was Flake?
A. Yes.
Q. You kept this man in custody from Wednesday evening until lunch time on Friday on the basis of an error of nickname?
A. I kept him in custody until I was satisfied that he was not the man. I believed he could have been the man.