Tunapuna man freed of gun charges

News Jada Loutoo 15 Hrs Ago

Police vehicles in Port of Spain. - File photo

THE High Court has dismissed all charges against a Tunapuna man who spent five months on remand on allegations of shooting with intent, possession of a firearm, and possession of ammunition.

Master Rehanna Hosein ruled after a sufficiency hearing that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against Akim Jaggernauth.

In delivering her decision, Hosein said the evidence, taken at its highest, could not support a conviction. The prosecution relied primarily on a civilian witness who claimed he saw the accused holding an object said to be a firearm moments before hearing explosions. The court, however, identified what it described as serious evidentiary gaps.

“There is no evidence of any object… no evidence of anything being discharged… no evidence of any smoke coming out of this alleged thing in his hand,” Hosein said. “What is the evidence, taken at its highest, that a reasonable jury properly directed could safely convict?”

The Master noted that no firearm, ammunition or spent shells were ever recovered, and no ballistic, medical or forensic evidence supported the allegations. A police search of the accused’s home also yielded no weapon, ammunition or clothing described in witness statements. Hosein also held that the sole witness did not establish any basis for recognising a functioning firearm or identifying the sound of a gun being discharged, as he admitted he never saw the accused fire anything.

“The only evidence the court has is this: the accused, known to these witnesses, had something in his hand or had a firearm in his hand, they started running, and then they heard explosions. That is the sum total of the prosecution’s case,” she added.

Hosein also referred to inconsistencies in the witness’s account, including his later statement that the accused never pointed any object at him and that the object was pointed at the ground at all times.

Given these deficiencies, the court found that the State failed to meet its burden and ordered the accused discharged on all three counts pursuant to Section 24 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act.

Defence attorney Yves Jacques Nicholson welcomed the ruling.

“This decision reaffirms the central function of a sufficiency hearing as a procedural safeguard within our criminal justice system,” Nicholson said. “It makes plain that no person should stand trial based on conjecture or inference where the State has failed to establish a proper evidential foundation. The rule of law demands more than mere assertion; it requires a prima facie case.”