FOUR of six attorneys representing alleged members of the Westmoreland-based King Valley gang, in a last-ditch effort yesterday, prevailed on Chief Justice Bryan Sykes to dismiss the charges against their clients, arguing that the Crown had produced no evidence to convict the men or establish that any such gang existed.

The bench trial began on January 14 with nine men in the dock, and heard several days of testimony from the star prosecution witness via live video link from an undisclosed location, who told the court that gang members were involved in the deadly lottery scamming scheme, committed murders and rapes in the course of robberies, and were also murderers for hire.

The witness, a former member of the gang, also said he had handed himself over to the police in 2018 and decided to give evidence against the gang after they allegedly killed seven of his family members, including his father, aunt, two uncles, a cousin, his sister, and an in-law in seeking to pull him out of hiding.

Three of the accused have since been freed, as the evidence against them collapsed. Those individuals along with the remaining six — Carlington Godfrey, alias Tommy; Rannaldo McKennis, otherwise known as Ratty; Derval Williams, also called Lukie; Christon Grant, alias Ecoy; Lindell Powell, also called Lazarus; and Copeland Sankey, also known as Tupac — had been charged in an indictment containing 11 counts on suspicion of being part of a criminal organisation, providing benefits to a criminal organisation, and conspiring to commit murder, rape and robbery with aggravation from as early as 2013.

Yesterday, the prosecution presented its closing arguments to Justice Sykes, followed by defence attorneys. Godfrey’s lawyer, Abina Morris, making the first submission, maintained that the credibility of the main witness, upon whom the prosecution’s case depended, was “tainted”, at the very least, and by his own admission.

“He told the court that he became a person of interest and that was the reason he turned himself in. This witness cannot be accepted as credible,” Morris noted, pointing to instances in which she said it was clear the witness had “lied”.

Chief Justice Sykes, in response to her line of reasoning, however, pointed out, “For trials like these, is it Father Ho Lung who is to come and give the evidence? If the Crown is prosecuting a crime, I would hardly expect to see Bishop Herro Blair show up and say, ‘I have knowledge of the people and they are members of a criminal organisation’; that is hardly the witness I would expect to see.”

Morris, continuing her argument, maintained that the court would be setting a dangerous precedence by allowing “a wanted man to say, ‘I’m going to commit some crimes and when I’m wanted I will go and tell some stories about Mary, Jane and Jack and go about my business’”.

“Nothing was done, no statements were taken from persons in the community, without more, milord, this witness is not credible…Take everything he says with a pinch of salt. The Crown has not proved its case against Mr Godfrey beyond a reasonable doubt. We are asking the court to return a verdict of not guilty,” Morris ended.

In the meantime, Powell’s attorney, Russell Stewart, argued that “the case put forward by the prosecution against Powell is weak and void of cogent evidence”, and that the evidence against his client “is hearsay at least”.

He further swiped at the evidence given by one of several police witnesses, noting that it was “bare bones”.

The trial judge, however, pointed out that Powell’s admission in a question and answer, owning up to firing five shots into the chest of an individual with whom the gang had a quarrel, had been supported by the findings of a post mortem as well as the testimony of the family member who found the body, which had been burnt as well.

Stewart, in admitting that the prosecution’s “best evidence would be the question and answer”, however, held that the interview itself still fell short, arguing that were the court to make a decision based on that evidence, it would be placing itself in a precarious position as his client “is not on trial for murder”.

“The court should not convict but acquit Mr Powell on the points proffered,” Stewart held.

Donald Bryan, counsel for McKennis, argued that “the Crown had failed to satisfy the court to the extent that it could feel sure”. He further questioned what he said was the failure of the prosecution to present the “strong forensic evidence, phone records and text messages” it had said was in its possession at the start of the trial.

“The Crown has failed to discharge the burden of proof. The Crown has failed to prove count three to the required satisfaction,” Bryan said of the evidence against his client, who has been charged with one count on the indictment, that of being part of a criminal organisation.

Attorneys O’neil Brown and Everton Bird are to present their closing arguments today when the trial resumes at 2:00 pm.