The Tribune

By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has ruled that a man must still stand trial for murder, despite the State taking more than five years to provide a pathologist’s report, forcing repeated trial delays.

Justice Dale Fitzpatrick said the prosecution was stalled for five years and three months while awaiting the report on the death of Lamar Moss, who was allegedly murdered by Shakeem Munroe in January 2021.

The report was not disclosed until May 28, 2026, despite the autopsy being completed days after Mr Moss’ death.

Mr Munroe’s trial is now scheduled to begin next year, on February 22, more than six years after his arrest.

Justice Fitzpatrick said the delay was entirely the State’s responsibility but found that the limited prejudice suffered by Mr Munroe did not establish a violation of his constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time.

Mr Munroe had asked the court to declare that his constitutional rights had been breached and award him damages. However, Justice Fitzpatrick dismissed the application.

Mr Munroe was arrested on January 26, 2021, and charged with murder on February 1. He was granted bail on May 28 that year, subject to conditions including electronic monitoring, regular police sign-ins and a curfew from 9pm to 6am.

The case was repeatedly delayed because the pathologist’s report remained outstanding. Trial dates set for November 2023 and March 2025 were vacated, while a further trial date in March 2026 was also abandoned.

Justice Fitzpatrick said the State could not escape responsibility for the delay simply because the Director of Public Prosecutions had repeatedly requested the report without success.

The Pathology Department at Princess Margaret Hospital, which prepares the reports, falls under the Public Hospitals Authority. The judge said delays by any government agency involved in the prosecution must be treated as the State’s responsibility.

He also noted that the Bail Act establishes three years as a reasonable period for bringing an accused person to trial. Mr Munroe’s case exceeded that benchmark by more than three years, with no evidence that its complexity justified the additional time.

The judge found that Mr Munroe had not contributed to the delay. He retained a lawyer promptly, attended court when required and accepted the trial dates offered. There was no instance in which he sought an adjournment or objected to an available trial date.

However, Justice Fitzpatrick said Mr Munroe provided no evidence to substantiate his assertion that the delay had compromised his ability to receive a fair trial.

The judge acknowledged that the proceedings had disrupted Mr Munroe’s family, social and working life and left him facing the stigma and uncertainty of a murder charge for years.

He also raised concerns about the effect of the delay on the prosecution’s nine witnesses, particularly its primary eyewitness, Mr Dames. The court had no recent statement from the witness or evidence that prosecutors had recently contacted him to establish whether he could still recall the events of January 2021.

Justice Fitzpatrick said fading memories could affect the fairness of a trial but concluded that the prejudice to Mr Munroe was minimal because he had not specifically explained or provided evidence of how the delay affected his defence.

The judge said damages would not have been available even if a constitutional breach had been established, as Mr Munroe’s prosecution remains ongoing and he did not seek to have the proceedings stopped.

His application for constitutional relief and damages was dismissed, and his trial remains scheduled for February 22, 2027.