Down Memory Lane
Le Nouveau
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 continued with the evidence of the Prosecution’s star witness namely:
Mr. Stanley Hermitte
Mr. Hermitte single handedly destroyed Guy Pool’s case with his damning testimony! Hermitte’s testimony continues...
Cross-examined: (shown Exhibit F) This was taken and signed by me.
Q.Before you took Exhibit F were you aware that he had made a statement to the police to the contrary?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he say that he had subsequent to that 1st statement made a statement to me – 3 days prior to 14th August?
A. No.
Q. You arrived in the
A. Yes. That was 10th August. He did not tell me that he had made a statement to you on 11th August. I would have been quite interested if he had.
Q. You say you saw Hermitte on this visit at the prison?
A. Yes.
Q. He is said to kept in protective custody. Did you have any difficulty in getting access to him or your interpreter?
A. No. Arrangements were made for my visit by the local police. I was told I could go and see him. I was making inquiries to the layout of the house of Mrs. Larue in relation to the house of Hermitte.
Q. Are you aware she is likely to give evidence for the defence?
A. I don’t know.
Q.Have you taken a statement from her?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware that she made a statement to me?
A. No.
Q. Your inquiries were concerned with ascertaining the thinness of the partition and the visibility between the two houses?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he say that it was quite easy to hear in one house what was said in the other house?
A. If you were in a certain position, yes.
Q. Have you been to the two houses?
A. Yes?
A.G. moves for leave to recall P.W 4 Major Biddle. My friend agrees to that course.
P.W.4 Major Biddle (sworn)
Q. The damage you saw at the Reef Hotel how would you class that?
A. Very extensive especially at the site and near the vicinity of the site of the explosion. I would say that serious damage has been caused to the property.
Q. You said that in your estimation the damage caused that it was likely to have been a bomb containing 1 to 2 lbs. gelignite.
A. Yes.
Q. Could you say from experience whether a bomb containing 1 to 2lbs of gelignite would cause an explosion of such a nature as to the likely to cause serious injury to property?
A. Yes.
P.W. 14 Serge Rampal (sworn)
Serge Rampal. I am an Asst. Immigration Officer. Among my duties I issue passport forms. I know Guy Pool. He is the accused. He had occasion to see me at the office. He asked me for 2 forms. That was about 6 weeks ago, I think it was in July about mid- July. He asked me one form to apply for a passport and one form to apply for entry in
Cross-examined :
Q. Did you check yesterday about the date of my arrival and departure in August in
A. I did.
Q. Did I arrive on 10th August prior to this present visit.?
A. I think it was that date. I saw it entered in the book.
Q. When did I leave on that trip?
A. 13th August.
Q. Accused came to you about mid July for a form for a passport and for a form for an entry permit to
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to him at all?
A. No he just asked me for 2 forms which I gave him.
Q.A person who wishes to immigrate to
A. Yes (shown a document)
Q. Is that the form?
A. Yes.
(Asked to read out contents of the form. He does so).
Q. What is the date of the letter attached?
A. 20th March, 1972. It is from
Mr. Kapila: I ask that the 3 documents be produced.
A.G. : None of these 3 documents can be produced by the witness. 2 of them are signed by the accused and 1 is signed by Immigration Officer in
Mr. Kapila : May they produced for identification purpose only and not as evidence in the case.
Court. The 3 documents to be produced for purpose of identification only and not as evidence in the case.
(admitted and marked Exhibits J.K. & L)
Witness
Q. Have you read the letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you read out the 2nd paragraph?
A.G.: This is not evidence. I object to this, it is produced for identification only and not as evidence in the case.
Mr. Kapila : This is not a trial with a jury. It is a trial by a judge alone. I am asking the witness to read out a paragraph from a letter which has been produced for identification.
Ruling : As the document has not been accepted as evidence in the case it cannot be read out.
Q. Read the 2nd paragraph to yourself. (witness does so).
Q. Do you maintain that he cam to you in July to ask for a yellow form as Exhibit k?
A. I do.
Q. The form he asked is similar to Exhibit K?
A. Yes except that it was not filled in. He asked for just the yellow form and not a form as Exhibit L.
Q. Does your Department issue immigration forms of
A. Yes.
(Shown a letter)
Mr. Kapila: I produce it for purpose of identification only and not as evidence.
Exhibit M.
Q. Will you read it out?
Ruling : Same ruling as before. This document is not so far evidence in the case and until produced by the proper person it cannot be read out. (Shown 2 letters and asked to read them. Witness does so).
Mr. Kapila : I produce the 2 letters for purpose of identification only and not as evidence in the case.
Witness : The letter purports to be from
Q. If Guy had received a permit to enter
A. I don’t know, maybe he could have come to collect for somebody else. I am an Asst. Immigration Officer.
Q. Do you agree it would be absurb to suggest that he came for the yellow form for himself in mid July if he had received the entry permit in May?
A. I agree.
Q. You don’t issue a passport unless the person produces an entry form?
A. We don’t issue a passport unless the person produces an application form duly filled in.
(Shown a document)
Q. Is that an application for a passport?
A. Yes.
Q. A cert. has to be given by somebody of the applicant’s good behaviors?
A. Yes. It is filled in by one Michael James Green M.L.A I know him. I do not know his signature. I haven’t seen it many times before.
Q. Who purports to the applicant?
A. Guy Roger Pool.
Q. What is the purported date?
A.16.5.72.
Q. Would you agree that if Guy Pool had completed that form on 16th May for a passport it would be absurb for him to come for a similar form in mid July for himself?
A. He asked me for a similar form as this one. He did not say whether it was for himself or somebody else. I have not seen this particular form before.
(Produced for identification purpose only and not as evidence in the case Exhibit P)
Q. You said he came to you about 6 weeks ago about mid July, what’s the date?
A. I don’t know the date.
Q. Are you speaking from a record?
A. No we don’t keep such a record.
Q. How do you fix the month?
A. It’s about 6 weeks ago.
Q. Lots of people come for these forms?
A. Yes. I know Guy Pool. The police came to see me about 3 weeks ago, in August.
Q. Was that after Stanley Hermitte had been taken into custody.
A. I don’t know that.
Q. Would you agree they came to you after 28th July?
A. Yes.
Q. They asked you what?
A. Whether I remember Guy taking some forms from me. I said I remember. They did not tell me why they had come to me to ask me this question. Woman police Stravens came to see me. She came alone. I do not know whether she is outside the court.
Q. I put it to you that you are lying when you said that Guy came to you for forms in
July?
A. I say it is the thruth?
Q. I put it to you that he did not come for either of these forms for himself or for
somebody else?
A. He came.
Q. I put it to you in fact he came to you with a completed passport form?
A. No.
Q. And you returned it to him asking him to bring a photograph and 2 stamps of Rs.15.--?
A. I don’t remember. It is possible that he did come but not to me.
By Court :
Q. Did the accused at any time come to you with a completed passport form?
A. No.
Q. You are definite on this?
A. I am.
Re-crossexamination : - This is a specimen of the passport application form. I am familiar with it (admitted and marked Exhibit O)
Q. When a person applies for a passport what is the procedure?
A He has to fill the form and he has to bring 2 photos one of which is signed by an attorney-at-law or priest or Magistrate and he brings his birth certificate or a previous passport if he holds one. When we issue a passport we detain the completed form. We retain the forms and tie them together in bundles.
Q. Could you say by looking at Exhibit P that it has never been retained by you?
A. A passport has not been issued on the form.
Q. Have you ever issued a passport to Guy?
A. No. I don’t know about the other officers. The procedure is this, when a passport is issued on a completed form, there is a remark made on the form to the effect that a passport is issued and that part of the form where the applicant’s signature is, is cut out to put on the passport. This has not been done with Exhibit P.
Q. Can you vouch for the accuracy of the dates on that form?
A. No.
Q. Who fills in the date on the form?
A. The applicant. He can put any date on the form.
Q. Is this the application form entry to
A. Yes. I am familiar with it. I produce it. Exhibit R (No objection)
Q. Did accused come to you to look for an application form for a passport and for a form for entry to
A. He did. I did not ask him what they were for.
P.W. 15 Supt. David Ashford (sworn)
David Ernest Ashford . Supt. of police and Officer commanding C.I.D Seychelles.
About 9a.m on Monday 14th February, 1972 I went to the scene of an explosion at the Reef Hotel, Anse Aux Pins. I made an examination of the scene which was at the south end of the hotel. I found at the scene a small piece of spent fuse and a piece of metal. I retained the custody of them and later handed them to Major Biddle. (Shown B. 18) This is the piece of metal which I found and collected the fragments. (shown B 20). That is what I understand to be a piece of spent fuse. I retained custody of it and later handed it to Major Biddle. It is my handwriting at the top of Exhibits B18 and B20. I believe instructions were given for them to be photographed (shown B19). This is the photograph of the larger fragment in Exhibit B.18. I was not an expert but I had a good look at the scene. (shown Al – 22). These photographs show the scene as I saw it.
I instructed a photographer Det. P.C. Dominic Wen Yam to take photographs of the scene from different angles.
About 3.15 p.m on Saturday 29th July, 1972 I went to Dans Berlin at Anse Aux Pins where I executed a search warrant on the home of one Mrs. Pool. I was accompanied by P.C Wen Yam and other police officers. Shortly after I arrived the accused arrived there. I went up to him and I said to him “I am making inquiries into the explosion which occurred at Reef Hotel on Monday 14th February, 1972. I’m in possession of a search warrant to search your mother’s property. You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you do say may be taken in writing and given in evidence.” The accused made no reply whatsoever. This is done in the presence of P.C. Wen. Yam. Later a few minutes I went with Guy Pool at Anse Aux Pins police Station where he was detained. Later I took him and his sister Daphne to Police H.Q. Victoria.
About 11.15 a.m. Monday 31st July I met Guy Pool in my office at Police H.Q. and told him that I was going to read out the charge to him and I handed him a copy of that charge and I proceeded to read the statement and particulars of offence to him. I cautioned him, the caution was written on the charge and he replied.....
Mr. Kapila: I object to all the statements taken from accused from this point. It would be convenient if a trial within a trial be commenced at this stage. I think we should have a single trial. I object to admissibility of statements on the ground of non compliance with the judges’ rules.
Witness : I read to accused what was recorded on this statement. It was taped. I told him “Do you wish to say anything. You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence”. When I told him so I did not hold out any threats , promise or inducement to the accused to make a statement. The accused then made a reply.
Q. What did he say?
Mr. Kapila: I object on the ground of non compliance with the Judges’ Rules.
Witness, at request of Mr. Kapila, asked to leave the court room for a while for Mr. Kapila to state the ground of this objections.
Mr. Kapila: There is a non compliance with a number of provisions of the judges rules that applied to
Supt. David Ashford (sworn)
At 11.15a.m on 31st July I formally charged Guy Pool. The charge was typed, I read it out to him. I cautioned him. I told him “Do you wish to say anything. You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence”. I did not put any questions to the accused. He replied. I wrote down the reply and the accused signed it. I did not sign No inducement, promise or threat was held out to accused when I said this to him. P.C. Wen Yam present.
Cross-examined: P.C Wen Yam signed the reply. I did not sign it. Under reflection I think I should have signed it.
Q. In all these statements in this case you have been operating from the background?
A. I have not been so closely involved in the 2 stages of this inquiry as one might expect.
Q. I suggest to you that you were trying to give an impression that it was the witness taking the statement and not you?
A. That is not true.
Q.You’re an experienced policeman?
A. I would say I’m reasonably experienced.
Q. You remembered to get the witnessing officer to sign?
A. Yes.
Q. And as the officer taking the statements you forgot to sign?
A. I did not say that I forgot to sign.
Q. Why didn’t you put it?
A. I was merely charging an accused prior to taking him to court and I did not consider it of sufficient importance. I do not know why I did not sign it. I thought it sufficient to get the witness to sign. My handwriting is on the document and I have nothing to hide. It is not true that my failure to sign is deliberate.
Q. You intentionally failed to sign?
A. That’s not true.
Q. It was not the result of carefulness?
A. I can’t recollect whether I forgot or whether I didn’t consider it important.
Q. Do you realize that this last answer is different from your earlier evidence?
A. I don’t think it is.
Q. Are you familiar with the Judges’ Rules?
A. Reasonably familiar.
Q. Did you realize in July which Judges’ rules applied in
A. I did. The ones introduced in
Q. After cautioning the accused did he say he wanted to make a statement?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell him it was intended to make a written record of what he said?
A. No.
Q. Did you asked him whether he wished to write down anything himself?
A. No.
Q. Did he decline to make a statement?
A. He made a verbal statement which I wrote down.
Re-crossexamination: - I would not be exact to say that number of Judges’ Rules. I was charging the accused prior to taking him to Court. I cautioned him. I said : “Do you wish to say anything. You are not obliged to say anything but whatever you say will be taken in writing and may be given in evidence”. I did not question him. I wrote down his reply and he signed it.
By Court
Q. Did he tell you he wanted to make a statement?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell him that you intended taking a written record of what he would say?
A. Apart from what is contained in the caution itself, no.
Q. Did you asked him whether he wished to write down himself what he had to say?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask him to sign a statement to the effect “I … wish to make a statement, I want someone to write down what I say . I have been told that I need not say anything unless I wish to do so and that whatever I say may be given in evidence?
A. I did not use these words.
Q. From what you’ve told me as soon as you put the caution to him which you had typed on the sheet of paper he forthwith made a statement which you wrote down?
A. Yes.
Q. You did not give him the option of writing the statement himself?
A. No.
P.W. 16 Det. P.C. Dominic Wen Yam (sworn)
A.G.: I offer this witness for cross-examination.
Mr.Kapila : No cross-examination. I do not wish to call any evidence.
Mr. Kapila : My submission is based on the grounds I first made. Accused was in custody. He was charged and cautioned. Words of caution are before Your Lordship. It can be followed by two alternatives (1) he makes no statement (2) if he makes a statement Rule 4 comes into operation. Pros. are seeking to produce what they describe as a statement. The person must be given the option to write down the statement himself. If he declines that other procedures are followed. None of the provisions of Rule 4 has been followed.