By Francis Joseph, newsday.co.tt
Tuesday, December 5 2006

YASIN ABU BAKR, the leader of the Jamaat Al Muslimeen, was yesterday afternoon freed of the charge of conspiracy to murder two expelled members of his organisation.

Justice Mustapha Ibrahim stopped the trial at the close of the prosecution’s case. He agreed with lead defence attorney Pamela Elder SC that the prosecution’s case was weak, that the witnesses were unreliable and to convict Bakr on such evidence would lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Bakr had been on trial since November 1. Apart from Bakr’s freedom, it was also a return to normalcy for the jury who had been sequestered at Crowne Plaza for the past four weeks. They left the hotel last night for their respective homes.

After the judge’s decision, Bakr told reporters that he held no grudges against anyone and that “part of goodness is forgiveness.” He thanked his attorneys for the work they put into his trial. Elder said justice was done, but she said the prosecution’s case should have ended after key witnesses Brent “Big Brent” Miller and Brent “Small Brent” Danglade gave evidence.

“With due respect to the Director of Public Prosecutions, I wonder if this was a prosecution or a persecution. I think this case warrants a commission of inquiry to investigate the conduct of the police officers in this trial,” Elder added.

DPP Geoffrey Henderson said he will abide by the ruling of the very experienced judge, noting that a lot of things happened outside the trial.

Miller did not come to court yesterday, but Danglade was seen leaving the Hall of Justice.

After the prosecution closed its case on November 17, Elder indicated she wanted to make a no-case submission. She began her submissions on November 20 and after four days, Ibrahim indicated he needed time to write his judgment. He set yesterday’s date for the delivery of that decision.

During the trial, there were a certain number of Jamaat followers in court. Yesterday, there was an increase in Bakr’s supporters, some of whom never attended the trial. Two of his wives Fatima and Indrani were present. Noticeably absent was Bakr’s first wife, Anisa.

There were more Jamaat followers and less security personnel. Ibrahim walked into court at 1 pm and immediately began reading his judgment in the absence of the jury. It was clear very early in the judgment, that the prosecution’s case was going to be knocked out.

Elder, in her submissions, said Miller was an admitted bandit, a person of unsavory character who had been involved in kidnappings, drug dealings, and firearms, but had never been prosecuted for any of these offences.

Elder pointed out that Miller was an accomplice, testifying under an immunity. She deemed him a hostile and perjured witness, who swore falsely at the preliminary inquiry on the Holy Quran when he was never a Muslim.

The defence attorney submitted that Miller’s evidence was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies which made his testimony manifestly unreliable.

Ibrahim said not only were there inconsistencies, but also lies that left the acceptance of his evidence in grave doubt. “Quite apart from the very unsatisfactory evidence of the main witness for the prosecution, that is Brent Miller, there are certain features of the case for the prosecution that cannot be ignored in determining whether the evidence as a whole is manifestly unreliable or so discredited that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it.”

Lead prosecutor Sir Timothy Cassel QC said he appreciated that he had problems because the two main witnesses for the State were hostile. Also, the police were not straight, for the evidence of the police officers was peculiar.

Cassel said some of them changed their evidence and Sgt Jayson Forde’s evidence was bizarre. Despite this, Cassel said the case should have been sent to the jury.

Ibrahim found that Miller was discredited in cross-examination by Elder and later by Cassel and on this basis Miller’s evidence was totally unreliable.

“I have considered the whole of the evidence very carefully and I have come to the conclusion that the evidence of the witnesses and particularly, the evidence of Brent Miller, is very weak and so manifestly unreliable and so discredited as a result of cross-examination that no reasonable tribunal, none whatsoever, could safely convict on it,” Justice Ibrahim ruled.

Yasin Abu Bakr, 65, of La Puerta Avenue, Diego Martin, was before Justice Ibrahim in the Port-of-Spain Third Criminal Court charged with conspiring with David “Buffy” Millard and others to murder expelled Jamaat members Salim Rasheed and Zaki Aubaidah on June 4, 2003 at Citrine Drive, Diamond Vale, Diego Martin.

www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,48688.html

More News on Bakr’s Victory:

Ibrahim upholds no-case submission
Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr has been exonerated of the charge that he conspired to murder two expelled members of his religious organisation.

Tears flow as Bakr set free
Deafening shouts of Allah U’ Acbar pervaded outside the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain, yesterday, after Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr was freed of conspiracy to murder charges.

Abu Bakr freed again
The State’s case against Jamaat-al-Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr came crashing down yesterday, when the trial judge directed the jury to set him free.

Second trial on the charge
Yasin Abu Bakr’s victory yesterday was not the first time he has managed to bring the State to its knees.

DPP’s hands tied against appeal
Director of Public Prosecutions, Geoffrey Henderson, yesterday refused to comment extensively on the outcome of the Yasin Abu Bakr conspiracy to murder trial, saying only that his office was reviewing the judge’s decision.

Victim’s family still hoping for justice
Bakr freed in conspiracy to murder trial
“NO wrong has ever gone unpaid,” says Virginia Bowen, the mother of Jillia Bowen, who was felled by bullets not meant for her on the night of June 4, 2003 outside the MovieTowne Complex at Invader’s Bay, Mucurapo.