Imam Yasin Abu Bakr, the leader of the Jamaat al Muslimeen, emerged from the Hall of Justice a free man yesterday and he will remain out on bail until the State decides when it will take a second shot at him.
By Darren BahawWord reaching the Daily Express last night indicated that Bakr's second trial may come sooner than he thinks as the State intends to put the matter on a preliminary list before a new judge and jury with the aim of getting the retrial off the ground before the end of this year.
Over the last two and a half months, the State had trained all its guns at the man who had led a bloody uprising against a lawfully elected government in 1990 hoping to convince nine people
that Abu Bakr was guilty of conspiring to murder two expelled members of his mosque.
But the best efforts of the State was not good enough leaving the jury, comprising five men and four women, at the end of three hours deliberations, split-six to three-resulting in the judge ordering Abu Bakr to face a retrial.
The State spent a considerable sum of money, amounting to millions of dollars, to prepare for the trial, which went on much longer than it anticipated and now it will have to be done all over again.
Had the six jurors, who were in the majority, been able to convince just one more member to side with them, the judge could have accepted a majority verdict, of seven to two, bringing an end to the trial, which has gripped the attention of the nation since it began on January 4.
Justice Mark Mohammed completed his second day of summation at 10.17 a.m., moments after the foreman requested clarification on the term "beyond a reasonable doubt", a measure of certainty the judge had directed the jury to arrive at before they could convict.
Mohammed said the term simply meant that they had to be sure about the evidence before accepting it.
Security inside the Hall of Justice as well as outside had been beefed up for the climax of the trial and on at least two occasion some members of the Jamaat complained that most of the seats inside the court had been occupied by security personnel.
Commissioner of Police Trevor Paul, Deputy Commissioner Oswyn Allard, and several senior officers of the Court and Process Branch, were seen in the foyer of the court while many plainclothes police officers and soldiers mingled about.
Outside heavily armed members of the Tactical Unit of the Guard and Emergency Branch, soldiers and other police officers lined the Knox Street and the perimeter of the Hall of Justice keeping a close eye on Abu Bakr's followers, some of whom chanted, "Allah-u-Akbar", while practically running up Abercromby Street, as their leader strode out of the court around 2. 30 p.m.
Tension which had been building up all day reached a high point in the Third Criminal Court around 1.20 p.m., when the foreman of the jury was asked whether he and all the other members of the jury had arrived at a unanimous verdict in which they all agreed.
He stared at the judge and replied "no".
Mohammed, in his usual careful way, asked both lead prosecutor Sir Timothy Cassel QC and lead defence attorney Pamela Elder SC to assist him on what enquiries he could make of the jury at that point but he did so in the jury's absence.
Upon the return to court, Mohammed asked the foreman:
"Do you think that if the jury is given more time you will be able to arrive at a verdict upon which you all agree?", to which the foreman responded, "No sir".
"Without disclosing in whose favour the majority lies will you please let the Court know what proportion you stand divided, in numbers only," Mohammed further asked, and the foreman replied, six to three.
The judge said in the circumstances a majority verdict could not be accepted and hinted at that stage of ordering a retrial, prompting Elder to comment that such a situation was "unfortunate" and agreed that the jury should be sent back to deliberate further.
Cassel wanted the judge to send the jury back for further deliberations advising the judge to enquire from the foreman whether any of the jurors in the minority might change their views if given more time.
Again exercising caution, Mohammed sent the jury out of court, and Cassel explained if there was a retrial the issue of the pretrial publicity generated by the first trial would be a matter of concern, a view which was shared by the judge.
At 1.45 p.m., Mohammed left court to research the issue and returned 25 minutes later by which time Elder said she had changed her position and no longer agreed that the jury should be directed to deliberate further since the Court was now aware
of their division. She was in favour of a retrial.
Elder said that she had announced her earlier position because of "my anxiety to end this case" and Cassel announced that he had the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson, who was sitting beside him, "not to resist Mrs Elder application's".
Mohammed admitted that if the jury were sent back for further deliberations "it would constitute some form of pressure" and "one would have to err on the side of caution...I will have to order a retrial".
Legal observers are of the view that the next round of battle will be an uphill task for the State as the defence's application to permanently stay the indictment against Abu Bakr based on adverse pretrial publicity will now be fortified by the extensive media reports of the first trial.
It is now open for the defence to request the DPP, they said, to consider discontinuing the indictment against Abu Bakr on the grounds of pretrial publicity, an application Henderson would no doubt consider but he will also have to weigh the public's interest which demands that serious criminal offences be brought before another judge and jury to be tried.
In dismissing the jurors, who have been sequestered since January 20, Mohammed thanked them for their service in performing their civic duty. He told them that they had heeded the call and showed their willingness to serve and it was obvious that they had payed close attention to the evidence in the trial.
