The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Office of the Attorney General’s “Swift Justice” initiative came under scrutiny yesterday when senior counsel from that office sought a five-month delay of a high-profile Old Fort Bay murder case because of an outstanding forensic evidence report.

Elliot Lockhart, QC, and Murrio Ducille, lawyers for 54-year-old murder accused Donna Vasyli, did not mince words when objecting to Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Garvin Gaskin’s application for an adjournment of the matter to February 2016.

In protest of the Crown’s request for a delay, Mr Lockhart stressed that his client should “get her Swift Justice which they (government officials) advertise throughout the world.”

Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs, after 90 minutes of arguments, said he “was not minded” to give the Crown more than three days to begin the case “that was given priority for a reason.”

A jury was empanelled yesterday and the case adjourned to Thursday at 11am.

Vasyli faces a murder charge concerning the March 24 fatal stabbing of her millionaire podiatrist husband Philip Vasyli, a native of Australia, at their Old Fort Bay home.

Vasyli had spent four months on remand between her arraignment on March 30 and July 30 when Court of Appeal judges affirmed Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs’ decision – on Vasyli’s third application before him – to grant her bail on medical grounds ahead of her trial start date expected on September 7.

When the case was called before Senior Justice Isaacs in yesterday’s proceedings, Mr Gaskin told the judge that it was “the Crown’s position that the matter ought not to proceed today as forensic documents remain outstanding.”

“M’lord there are some other circumstances that were unforeseen regarding witnesses in this matter and in all of the circumstances, we humbly maintain the trial ought not to start today,” the senior prosecutor said.

“It’s not an unreasonable time that has expired as we’re still on track for the constitutional compliance but we’re seeking a date in February (2016),” Mr Gaskin added.

“I don’t think it’s an issue of an unreasonable delay as this matter was given priority for a reason,” the judge said.

“I object to the application and I’m shocked to hear this application today,” Mr Lockhart interjected.

Mr Lockhart argued that the prosecution’s four-month resistance to his client receiving bail had been on the basis that there was no unreasonable delay for the accused, who had received a date for trial within six months of the alleged commission of the offence.

“They (the Crown) have the backing of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and all of its resources,” Mr Lockhart said, adding that the prosecutor’s explanation “is a lame excuse.”

Mr Lockhart said the lawyers for the accused had received a thorough report on the DNA evidence the Crown intended to rely on and did not see what more they could be trying to ascertain from further forensic analysis.

“And these witnesses who are not well, perhaps he can produce some medical report for them,” Mr Lockhart said.

“If you charge someone, you must be ready to prosecute,” he added.

“You say the explanation is nonsense?” asked Senior Justice Isaacs.

Mr Lockhart said he would not use that exact description, “but if they have no case, I’d ask for the matter to be dismissed for want of prosecution.”

Mr Gaskin countered: “One set of DNA reports had been served, that’s my information. I also have medical certificates of the two witnesses for the forensics.”

Senior Justice Isaacs, upon sight of the served report, said to Mr Gaskin “this report seems to be quite thorough.”

The prosecutor replied that there were other elements to the DNA evidence still outstanding.

“Mr Gaskin, this matter was given priority for a specific reason,” the judge stressed, adding that he “can’t fault Mr Lockhart’s application, although it’s still early.”

“His request is obviously one that does not find conformity in law but his lordship is rightfully concerned and we humbly acknowledge that,” Mr Gaskin replied.

“My point is this – everyone was put on notice that this matter was being given priority,” the judge stressed. “We’ve come from five months ago to this point. What is it that’s going to take five months or so to sort out?”

Mr Gaskin proposed December as an earlier date as the witness on medical leave was not expected back to work until November.

When probed, Mr Gaskin confirmed to the judge that the witness was a police officer.

“Giving evidence isn’t going to work,” the judge said.

Mr Gaskin said that he had no control over such matters but “it may be that part of his duties includes coming to court to testify.”

“My jury pool is here again for a third week and the prosecution has no case,” Senior Justice Isaacs stressed, further suggesting that the Crown propose a much earlier date.

“I’m asking for a reasonable period in these circumstances so we don’t come back singing the same song,” Mr Gaskin said.

Mr Lockhart, however, said the Crown’s application “all flies in the face of the court about every policy in the Attorney General’s Office about Swift Justice.”

“We said he had no case from the start and we still say they have no case,” Mr Lockhart added. “This court can order him to produce witnesses and if he refuses, this court has the power to dismiss the matter.”

“It’s time to put up or shut up,” Mr Lockhart added, asking the judge to “do what is necessary to give Donna Vasyli ‘Swift Justice.’”

Yesterday, Mr Ducille questioned what further forensic testing the prosecution required adding, “Unless this is all a stalling tactic.”

The judge stressed that other persons and their lawyers with cases in his court had been displaced to accommodate this case.

“What you’ve done, in effect, is left all of us with no work,” Senior Justice Isaacs said before asking if the prosecution had “at least” brought witnesses to court.

“There’s one that I know of,” Mr Gaskin said, prompting the judge to suggest that the Crown was expecting to get its request approved.

Mr Gaskin said this was not the case.

The witnesses were called into court and there were 11 more present than Mr Gaskin knew of. However, the Crown still proposed that the matter be adjourned to November.

Mr Ducille interjected and said that the dozen witnesses present were all listed on the docket. Mr Gaskin said the number was a fraction of what the Crown was intending to call and that eight more could be added to the list.

The matter resumes on Thursday.

Vasyli remains on $200,000 bail.

Neil Braithwaite also appears for the prosecution.