LAST Friday’s edict by Chief Justice Bryan Sykes that all jury trials currently under way are to be completed by the latest March 20, 2020 and that no new jury trials are to begin in the next 14 days, given the COVID-19 pandemic, has resulted in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions electing to suspend the trial of attorney Sean Kinghorn and two others.

Kinghorn, his secretary Ruth Ann Kelly Spencer and farmer Linton Campbell are charged with conspiracy to defraud the estate of a dead St Mary returning resident.

The three, who have all pleaded not guilty, are facing conspiracy charges stemming from an allegation that they illegally created a will for the elderly woman in 2008.

At the start of the matter earlier this month, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Adley Duncan, leading the evidence, told the panel “evidence will be called upon by the prosecution to show that the signature on the will was fake”.

“It wasn’t made by the person they said it was for. The prosecution is basically calling witnesses to establish that these three persons acted together to defraud the estate of the dead person,” he indicated.

Yesterday, in the wake of the decision taken by the court, Duncan — addressing Supreme Court Judge Justice Lorna Shelly-Williams — outlined the prosecution’s approach.

“The learned chief justice Friday issued a directive that no new matters were to start, and any continuing matter should end by Friday of this week. This matter requires a number of weeks and cannot be completed by then. I have discussed the matter with the director of public prosecutions and we have arrived at a position. Based on where we are in the trial, the prosecution intends to enter a nolle prosequi. As of today the matter will effectively come to an end and will resume on an agreed trial date in the new term,” Duncan said.

Following a temporary adjournment to allow for the document to be presented, Duncan, at the resumption, told the court “the prosecution has submitted at the registry a document which effectively suspends this matter to a new date to be agreed”.

Justice Shelly-Williams, in turn, dismissed the seven- member jury which has been hearing the evidence in the matter.

“…the DPP has entered a nolle prosequi, a document which says the Crown will not continue the case at this time. You are hereby discharged based on the nolle prosequi,” she told the panel.

April 15 was, in the meantime, decided on as the mention date for the new case the judge said, pointing out that if the notes of evidence were produced at that time, a trial date would be decided on.

In response to defence attorney Oswest Senior Smith’s query as to whether a trial date could not be set tentatively she pointed out, “if the notes of evidence are not ready we cannot proceed”.

After further consultation a tentative date of June 29, 2020 was set for the trial “all things being equal”. The bail for all three has, in the meantime, been extended.

In exercising her power to discontinue proceedings before the courts, the DPP enters a nolle prosequi.

This power is given under Section 94 (3) (c) of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act. Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act prescribes that at any stage before the court renders judgement, the DPP may discontinue criminal proceedings in any court by entering a nolle prosequi.

She may do so by stating in open court where the proceedings are pending or by informing the clerk of the courts in writing that the Crown does not intend to continue such proceedings.

Consequently the proceedings will end, and on receipt of such notice the accused shall at once be discharged in respect of the charge for which the nolle prosequi is entered.

However, the entering of a nolle prosequi by the DPP is not an acquittal on the charges being tried and the DPP has the power to bring back or re-indict the matter.

A nolle prosequi can be entered even though the accused person has pleaded guilty to a lesser charge on the indictment, for example pleading guilty to manslaughter instead of murder, as long as the court has not yet passed sentence.