Chief Justice to rule on secret recordings in gang trial

Chief Justice Bryan Sykes is to rule on Monday whether he will be accepting the secret recordings of conversations of alleged members of the Clansman-One Don Gang as evidence in the ongoing trial.

This follows the prosecution's submission yesterday that the recordings have met the required standard of the Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2015.

The recordings, on which the prosecution is heavily relying to help prove its case against the 33 alleged gangsters, and to corroborate the testimony of its two main witnesses, were captured by a former top-tier gang member using three cellular phones.

However, in order for the recordings to be accepted, it must satisfy sections of the act. It must be decided if the computer that was used to produce the document was functioning properly at all material times or that the malfunctioning of the computer did not affect the production and accuracy of the document. The act also requires the prosecution to prove that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the statement (recordings) is inaccurate because of the improper use of the computer which in this case are the cellular phones.

The prosecution argued that the Crown is compliant with the requirements of the section as the phones were operating properly at all times when the recordings were being made and there was no malfunctioning of the phones that is shown which would have affected the production of the recordings.

However Lloyd McFarlane, lead attorney for reputed leader of the One Dong Gang Andre 'Blackman' Bryan, argued that the prosecution has not met the required standards and that it has a serious burden to prove that the phones were working properly at all times.

Sykes dubbed the investigator's failure to provide the forensic expert with feedback in order for him to do a complete report as 'lazy work'. However, he agreed that an inference could be made that the phones were working properly at the time given that the recordings were sound. But he agreed that the inference is not enough to satisfy the standard required by the act.

The forensic analyst who had extracted the recordings from the phones testified that he did a preliminary report but resigned from the force while was awaiting feedback from the investigating officer so that he could provide a complete report.