The Queen v Evon George Robinson

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Malcolm Swift (Actg.)
• Judgment Date: 11 November 2014
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Docket Number: INDICTMENT NO: 0017/2014
• Date: 11 November 2014

The Queen

and

Evon George Robinson

[2014] CIGC J1111-2

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Malcolm Swift (Actg.)

INDICTMENT NO: 0017/2014

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

RULING ON TRANSCRIPTS

1 I indicated the general nature of my ruling at the conclusion of submissions on the 11^th November 2014 and said that I would provide reasons in writing. Those reasons now follow.

2 The defence submits that:

• i. The audio recordings made by Mr. Victor Colon of his interviews with the Defendant on the 11^th June 2012 should only be played during the evidence of Mr. Colon;

• ii. The audio recordings should be played in their entirety;

• iii. the transcripts of the audio recordings (although it is conceded that the jury may have them in order to follow the audio recordings when they are played) should be withdrawn from the jury at the conclusion of the playing of the recordings

3 I have already previously ruled that the audio recordings made by Mr. Colon are admissible in evidence. The recordings are interviews with the Defendant in which the Defendant made admissions and contentions which the Crown seeks to adduce as part of the case against him. Those admissions and contentions were made of course in answer to questions he was being asked and I have already ruled that nothing occurred during the entirety of Mr. Colon's dealings with the Defendant which could affect the voluntariness of the Defendant's spoken words.

4 In relation to the first submission, I am satisfied that Mr. Colon provided sufficient evidence of the provenance of his interviews when he attended last week to give evidence. The contents of the interviews have never been in dispute. There is no challenge to the words spoken or to the accuracy of the transcripts or to the quality of the recording. Mr. Colon gave the date and timing of each interview and was referred to specific passages in the transcripts of the interviews during cross-examination. He stated that he had handed the recordings to his legal department (at FedEx) and they handed them over to the Police who transcribed them. If alerted to the present submissions at the time when Mr. Colon was giving evidence, the interviews could easily have been adduced in evidence while he was in the witness box. It is only for reason of practical convenience that they are being adduced after Mr. Colon has completed his evidence (as he needed to leave the country) and after the extended public holiday.

Until this submission was made this morning (11^th November), the Crown and the Court were unaware that the defence intended to argue that Mr. Colon should, in effect, produce the audio recording by having it played in his presence. Indeed, until this morning, the defence position had been that the first interview (not even the subject of the admissibility argument earlier in the trial) could be reduced to an agreed summary. That position has now changed. I have no hesitation is deciding that it is not necessary for Mr. Colon to be flown back to this court for the sole purpose of formally producing the audio recordings when he has effectively done that in the course of the evidence he gave last week. No valid reason has been advanced to me to justify this unusual proposed course.

5 I accede to the second submission. It is a matter for the defence to decide whether they agree to a transcript being reduced to a summary (to save Court time when the contents are mainly of peripheral importance) or whether they wish the audio recording to be played (and/or the transcript to be read) to the jury in full. The defence has decided that it requires the whole of both interviews to be played in full and I have no reason to interfere with that course of action. Of course that means that matters which could otherwise have been excluded by agreement from the interviews will now be adduced in evidence at the insistence of the defence.

6 As to the third submission, the defence argues that these interviews should be dealt with in evidence in the same way as video recorded evidence of a complainant in a sexual case is treated. In other...