Former policeman Keenon David, who was charged for a July 2019 fatal shooting at Seeta’s Bar, Kitty, Georgetown, walked a free man on Tuesday following a no-case submission by Attorney-at-Law Siand Dhurjon at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court.
The ruling was delivered by Magistrate Annette Singh at the close of the prosecution’s case, bringing an end to proceedings that arose from an incident that occurred more than four years ago.
The charge stemmed from the death of Kurt Anthony Duncan, who was fatally shot during an altercation at Seeta’s Bar on July 29, 2019.
The prosecution’s case centered primarily on the evidence of a single eyewitness who had been socializing with the deceased on the evening in question, as well as CCTV footage obtained from five separate cameras installed at the establishment.
At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, counsel for the accused advanced a no-case submission on the basis that the evidence adduced was wholly insufficient to establish a prima facie case. It was submitted that the court was required to consider whether the evidence, taken at its highest, was capable of supporting a conviction. Counsel argued that it plainly was not.
In detailed submissions, defense attorney Dhurjon contended that the prosecution’s case was fatally undermined by the unreliability of its sole eyewitness. Through cross-examination, the witness was shown to be so manifestly discredited that his testimony could not safely be relied upon, Dhurjon contended.
He further highlighted significant inconsistencies, contradictions, and deficiencies in the witness’s account, submitting that his evidence had been irreparably damaged to the point where no reasonable tribunal could place weight upon it.
During the proceedings, he submitted that the CCTV footage, despite being derived from five separate cameras at the scene, failed to cure these defects. Dhurjon argued that the footage did not establish, to the requisite standard, that the accused was the person who committed the shooting.
The identification of the perpetrator from the video evidence was said to be uncertain, inconclusive, and incapable of supporting a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In addition, Dhurjon contended that there was no evidence before the court to account for any change in David’s appearance over the substantial passage of time between the incident in 2019 and his eventual arrest in 2024.
It was submitted that this gap further weakened any attempt at identification, particularly in circumstances where the accused had been at large for an extended period and no reliable evidential link had been established connecting him to the person depicted in the footage.
A wanted bulletin had initially been issued for David, a former policeman, on at least two occasions in July 2019 and again in September 2023.
After remaining at large for almost four years, he was eventually apprehended on January 16, 2024, at Soesdyke Back Road, Timehri, where he was reportedly found playing cards. He was subsequently remanded to prison for the duration of the preliminary inquiry proceedings.
In upholding the no-case submission, Magistrate Annette Singh accepted that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused as the issue of identification, which was raised by the defense, loomed large in the case.
The court found that the evidence, including both the eyewitness testimony and the CCTV footage, was insufficient to require the accused to enter a defense. The charge was accordingly dismissed, and the accused was discharged.
In delivering her ruling, the learned magistrate remarked that David ought to be thankful for the resolute efforts of his counsel, Dhurjon, in the conduct of the matter.
Following the decision, David expressed his gratitude to the court for its patience and its commitment to upholding justice and the rule of law. He also thanked his attorney for his perseverance throughout the proceedings.
Dhurjon welcomed the decision, noting that the case highlights the critical importance of properly testing identification evidence and witness credibility.
He emphasized that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and that this burden must be discharged with evidence capable of supporting a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
