LEGAL OPINION
Re: In the Matter of Nicholas Nelson
Issue: Whether the State may rely on a DNA report not admitted during the sufficiency
hearing under AJIPA
1. Introduction
This opinion addresses whether the State may properly rely on a DNA report that was not
presented at the sufficiency hearing stage under the Administration of Justice (Indictable
Proceedings) Act, Chap. 12:01 (AJIPA), in the trial of Nicholas Nelson. The key concern is
whether introducing this evidence at the High Court would violate principles of fairness or
amount to an abuse of process.
2. Procedural History
Nicholas Nelson was charged with an indictable offence. Pursuant to the reforms introduced
by AJIPA, the matter proceeded via paper committal (sufficiency hearing) before a Master of
the High Court. At that stage, the State did not rely on or file a DNA report as part of the
evidential bundle to support committal.
Notwithstanding this, the accused was committed for trial in the High Court based on the
evidence provided. Subsequent to committal, the State seeks to introduce the DNA report
for the first time at trial. The defence objects, citing procedural unfairness and the accused's
constitutional right to a fair hearing under section 4(a) of the Constitution.
3. Issues
1. Whether the State may introduce evidence at trial that was not filed during the
sufficiency hearing under AJIPA;
2. Whether such late introduction constitutes “fresh evidence,” and what principles
govern its admissibility;
3. Whether the accused's right to a fair trial under the Constitution would be
compromised.
4. Legal Framework
A. AJIPA and the Sufficiency Hearing Process
The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, No. 20 of 2021 (now Chap. 12:01),
replaced the traditional preliminary inquiry with a paper-based sufficiency hearing to
determine if a case should proceed to trial.
•
Under section 14(1) of AJIPA, the prosecution must file an initial disclosure bundle
containing all relevant witness statements and documentary evidence intended to
establish a prima facie case.
•
Section 16(1) allows the accused to make submissions or file evidential objections
before committal.
•
Section 20(1) provides that if the Master finds the evidence sufficient, the accused is
committed to stand trial.
Key Point: The evidentiary threshold at the sufficiency hearing is prima facie sufficiency, not
a full trial on the merits. The State is not legally required to include all evidence intended for
trial at that stage.
B. Fresh Evidence After Sufficiency Hearing
The law does not preclude the State from relying on additional evidence at trial that was not
included at the sufficiency hearing — but safeguards must be applied to avoid prejudicing the
accused.
Trinidad and Tobago courts have not yet developed extensive case law under AJIPA
specifically. However, the principles from prior practice under preliminary inquiries remain
relevant, adapted to the new framework.
Local case law recognizing this includes:
•
Tony
Reid
v
The
State
Crim.
App.
No.
P-0049
of
2019
The Court held that post-committal evidence may be allowed if the defence is not
unfairly prejudiced and disclosure obligations are met.
•
Richard
Samlalsingh
v
The
State
Crim.
App.
No.
P-028
of
2017
The court emphasized that the overriding consideration is trial fairness, particularly in
relation to expert evidence.
•
Akili
Charles
v
The
State
Crim.
App.
No.
P-075
of
2009
Reinforced that the defence must have a fair opportunity to meet all prosecution
evidence.
C. Constitution and the Right to a Fair Trial
Section 4(a) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago guarantees the right of the individual
to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Late admission of crucial expert evidence (like DNA) without adequate disclosure or time to
respond may violate this right and justify exclusion or adjournment.
D. Disclosure Obligations
Under Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR) 2016, the prosecution has a continuing
duty to disclose:
•
Any material evidence (including expert reports),
•
As soon as it becomes available, and
•
Even after committal.
Failure to comply with this duty may result in:
•
Exclusion of the evidence;
•
An adjournment; or
•
A stay of proceedings for abuse of process in serious cases.
5. Application to the Present Case
In this matter, the DNA report was not disclosed or filed during the sufficiency hearing. The
State is now attempting to introduce it at trial. The analysis depends on:
•
When the DNA report became available: If it only became available after the
sufficiency hearing, the State may be justified in its late reliance.
•
If it existed at the inquiry stage and was withheld: This could constitute procedural
unfairness or prosecutorial misconduct.
•
Whether the defence was properly notified: If the report was disclosed late but in
advance of trial, the court may allow its use with safeguards.
The defence may apply for:
•
Exclusion of the report under the court’s inherent jurisdiction or CPR;
•
Adjournment to secure expert review and prepare cross-examination;
•
In extreme cases, a stay of proceedings for abuse of process.
6. Conclusion and Advice
Conclusion:
Under AJIPA, the State is not barred from introducing evidence at trial that was not filed
during the sufficiency hearing. However, such evidence — especially expert evidence — must
be handled with care to ensure compliance with disclosure rules and the accused’s right to
a fair trial.
Advice:
•
If the DNA report was available but deliberately withheld, the defence should move
to exclude it or seek a stay.
•
If the report was generated after the sufficiency hearing, it may be admissible, but the
court should ensure fairness by granting an adjournment or allowing rebuttal expert
evidence.
•
The defence should invoke the authority of Reid, Samlalsingh, and Akili Charles to
reinforce that late evidence is only permissible where fairness is preserved.
7. Key Authorities
•
Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, Chap. 12:01 (ss. 14–20)
•
Criminal Procedure Rules 2016, Part 5
•
Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, s.4(a)
•
Tony Reid v The State, Crim. App. No. P-0049 of 2019
•
Richard Samlalsingh v The State, Crim. App. No. P-028 of 2017
•
Akili Charles v The State, Crim. App. No. P-075 of 2009
•
Bethel v The State [1998] UKPC 15
•
Michael Hercules v The State, Crim. App. No. 1 of 2009