The Death of Justice

2007-04-23

Anand Ramlogan’s commentary, ‘How many more must die?’ (Guardian 2007-04-22), shines a spotlight on dilapidated, disconnected, and neglected systems, lacking accountability and still operating partly in the dark ages.

The Anamunthudo case he referred to is representative. It is necessary to overview the salient features of the case to highlight the scale of systems and individual failures.

From media coverage of the case the following are known:

  1.  Four-year old Amy Emily Anamunthodo was allegedly murdered on May 15 2006 in circumstances suggestive of neglect and abuse.
  2. The Guardian reported on 18th May 2006 that neighbours had claimed that Amy was seen at the San Fernando General Hospital several times after being physically beaten. The case was referred to Medical Social Workers at the hospital. Three months prior to Amy’s death it was reported that she was placed in a safe house. However, the Ministry of Social Development confirmed Amy’s case was never referred to the National Family Services (NFS) unit of the Ministry.
  3. PC Marcelle Hamilton laid six counts of child neglect and child abandonment against Anita Anamunthodo before the San Fernando Magistrates’ Court.
  4. Bail was reduced from $45,000 to $7500. Ms Anamunthodo remained incarcerated, unable to secure the bail sum.
  5. Amy’s step father, Marlon King, was charged with murder around September 2006.
  6. Anamunthodo’s case was called some twenty times in court. Eventually the case was dismissed on 16th April 2007 on the grounds that on each occasion the matter was called, PC Hamilton was absent.
  7. Deputy Chief Magistrate Marc Wellington confirmed that no prosecution witnesses were present and no state attorney had been appointed to the case.
  8. The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had not received a file on Anamunthodo.
     

Section 90 of the Constitution of Trinidad & Tobago gives certain powers to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Where it is proper to do so he may:

• …institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person…

• …take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other person or authority..’

• Exercise these powers ‘…in person or through other persons acting under and in accordance with his general or special instructions.’

With power comes responsibility and duty. It is reasonable to enquire of the DPP:

  1. Was he knowledgeable and informed that on several occasions PC Hamilton failed to be present, and the Anamunthodo case was repeatedly being called without appointment of a state prosecution attorney for just under a year? If so, what actions did he take to have these obvious deficiencies addressed?
  2. Approaching the twentieth hearing of the case where the DPP ought reasonably to have been aware of the possibility or reality of recurrence of the above circumstances, did the DPP consider it proper to personally take over and continue the criminal proceedings? Did he consider using his Section 90 powers and did he act accordingly? What did he consider and how did he act?
  3. Did anyone in the DPP’s office at any point know that a file on the Anamunthodo case had not been received? Assuming that they knew as they ought to, what actions did they take to put right that situation?

Turning to Social Services:

  1. How is it that a 4 year old child turns up at hospital in circumstances that would naturally trigger suspicions of abuse, gets referred to Medical Social Workers, is put in a safe house for some time – and yet the case is not referred to the NFS?
  2. Why was the case not referred?

Is it not fair for an average reasonable person to wonder whether:

  1. The office of the DPP was negligent?
  2. PC Hamilton and his superior officers were negligent?
  3. Medical Social Workers and the NFS were collectively negligent?
  4. The non-appearance of PC Hamilton when the case was called on so many occasions was contemptuous of the court.

Contrast the way Anamunthodo’s case was dealt with compared to Shawn Parris’s.

On 11th February 2004 acting Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard, told Justice Herbert Volney in the First Assize Court in San Fernando that the DPP (Geoffrey Henderson) had taken a decision to discontinue the proceedings on the charge of murder and to re-indict Parris for manslaughter. But it is clearly documented that Shawn Parris had confessed the following: "I saw the victim coming out the doorway, heading towards her car. She greeted me, smiled... then she opened her door-the front driver door. I looked directly at her and squeezed one shot off the gun. Then she started screaming. She asked for someone to help her. Uncontrollably I squeezed another round and another round and another round. At that time she was slumped down on the passenger side of the car and I squeezed another round again at her." A perplexed Justice Volney commented, “This was a classic case of premeditated killing for money — a contract killing, an unlawful killing with malice aforethought…. It was the good fortune of the prisoner to avoid the sceptre of death by hanging”. In other words the core legal requirements for murder, of actus reus, mens rea and intent, were blindingly obvious. Parris promptly pleaded guilty to manslaughter and escaped the hangman’s noose! The rest is now history.

But take Anamunthodo – she has admitted publicly to living in chronic poverty. She was not charged with murder. Some might say it was just child neglect and abandonment associated with a filicide. So where are we now? Are unlawful homicides caused by the cold-blooded pumping of lead into the chests of innocent strangers in contract killings less contemptuous crimes than chronic neglect and abandonment associated with filicides? I don’t think so. Why therefore was Anamunthodo’s case treated so differently to Parris’s? Would Parris have been allowed to walk free as easily, given the same circumstances surrounding Anamunthodo? Or would Marlon King be allowed to get off without a trial? I don’t think that you would think so.

In the eyes of the public Anamunthodo is ‘nobody’ compared to Prof Vijay Narayansingh and the late Chandra Narayansingh. But justice is to be served equally to all, for all. On the one hand we have seen the DPP making Herculean attempts to secure a conviction on Shawn Parris; out in front using powers, when it was unusual for him to need to. Why was Justice Volney so minded to say what he did (above)? In the Anamunthudo case however, average people might be led to think that the DPP sat on his hands for 11 months when he definitely needed not to.

No – what we have seen recently is not justice, or the way justice should be seen to operate. In the last five years there have been several cases that pointed to a faltering justice system. How are we to look upon all this? While possibly the machinery of justice is in much needed repair or overhaul, the dark shadows cast by events in the Anamunthudo case compel me to ponder whether the faulty output of the system is primarily due to the collective failures of its ‘operators’. But we need to look further and higher! Who at the helm is accountable for overseeing the actions of these ‘operators’? Have they been all asleep, intoxicated or visited by insanity? Is it not reasonable to ask these questions?

It is apparent to many that abandonment and neglect may have been factors associated with Amy’s death and now similar factors risk contributing to the death of justice in Trinidad and Tobago.