By Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterTHE COURT of Appeal yesterday criticised Judge Justice Howard Cooke for the unfair manner in which he conducted the trial of Kingston businessman 51-year-old Eric Smith.
"The trial was not fair to the applicant and the convictions cannot stand," the court held when it freed Smith of gun-related charges.
Defence lawyers Norman Wright, Q.C. and Jacqueline Samuels-Brown had argued that Justice Cooke's interruptions and interventions during Smith's trial had departed from the recognised standards of fairness in a criminal trial.
Yesterday was the third time within the last six months that Justice Cooke was being criticised by the Court of Appeal. He was criticised twice in July when the court had to free two appellants because of his 'unwarranted interference' during the trials.
In handing down its unanimous decision yesterday, the Court of Appeal, comprising Justice Donald Bingham, Justice Clarence Walker and Justice Seymour Panton, said that the extent of the judge's interruptions, which had nothing to do with clarifications, was to be regretted. The judges said the system failed in Smith's case and therefore Smith must go free.
"This is happening far too frequently and the court (judges) must take note of what is happening and take heed in discharging their duties," Justice Bingham said as he delivered the unanimous decision. The court said further that what happened in Smith's case was clearly to be regretted.
In making submissions before the court on Monday, Smith's lawyers argued that the judge abandoned his role and assumed the role of prosecutor, advocate and witness for the prosecution.
The lawyers pointed out that of the 192 questions posed to the complainant during evidence in chief, 161 of those questions were asked by the judge. The lawyers said that attorney-at-law Arthur Kitchin, who represented Smith at his trial, was obstructed and intimidated in the presentation of the defence as a result of the judge's interventions.
