It is clearly insufficient to leave the matter of the brutal attack on British couple Peter and Murium Green at the point of the magistrate dismissing the case because of the non-appearance of the Greens in court earlier this week. This is so because too much is riding on this matter, including the country's international reputation. Already perhaps little can be done by way of damage control given that it is not the first incident of violence against tourists in Tobago. However, the State must demonstrate to the international community that if it cannot stop every criminal act which takes place against its own citizens and visitors, it could at least successfully pursue the perpetrators to a conclusion of guilty or not.
We are here not questioning the legal grounds of the magistrate to have dismissed the matter. As a well experienced magistrate, Annette McKenzie must certainly be aware of what the law allows her to do and not to do in the circumstances caused by the non-appearance of the Greens. What we are saying however is that there are options which are open for proceeding with the case which must be taken up by the State. Under the amended Summary Offences Act of 2005, No 15, Section 63A, 4 and 5, makes it clear that "a written statement by a witness shall, if the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are satisfied, be admissible as evidence to the like extent as oral evidence, to the like effect by that witness."
What the legalise means is that once certain conditions relating to procedures set out in another part of the law are followed, then the Greens can submit a written statement which will be accepted in the court as evidence.
As we understand it, the ball is now in the court of the Director of Public Prosecutions to study the matter and determine if the State can take the route of having the Greens submit a written statement for a court case to proceed. This editorial is not reaching a conclusion of guilt or innocence against Clint Alexis. However, it must be that the police must have believed that they have gathered evidence which could stand up in court. Indeed, the DPP would have had to have given the police the permission to pursue the charge in the first place. From what was said by Peter Green in a television interview on Monday evening, their doctors have advised against them travelling here because of their still very difficult medical condition. Taking him on his word, he and his wife have good reason not to be here to go to court.
In addition to their physical condition, it would most obviously be quite a traumatic experience for the elderly couple, so savagely brutalised, to relive the experience in front an open court. That means there is more than good reason for the State to seriously contemplate getting them to make a statement from the safety and security of their present home and to have that statement presented in court by attorneys.
Justice demands that this case be taken up in the manner allowed by the laws of the country and be proceeded with once the legal authorities are satisfied there is substance to the charge. As stated before, if T&T is to present itself to the world as a country where law is seriously considered and victims could at least have the satisfaction that the guilty would pay for their crimes, then the DPP and the police have to follow the law as far as they are able to.