30. These claims formed the basis of the alleged victims’ appeal to the Board of the Privy Council for special leave, to which was added a supplementary petition of February 18, 1999, containing a dispute over the ballistics evidence, supported by a report from a ballistics expert of June 4, 1998 which strongly suggested that the revolver allegedly used in the attack was not in fact used.22 The petitions were dismissed by the Board on April 28, 1999.23 31. As found within the facts and procedural history outlined within the case before the Privy Council,24 Shawn Baptiste and Alicia Henry swore affidavits, respectively on July 9, 1999 and October 15, 1999, retracting the evidence they had given at trial. Specifically, Shawn Baptiste’s affidavit contained the following assertions, among others: that he lied about the identification of the gunmen, who he claimed were masked at the time; further than only one had a gun and the revolver found by the police was possibly brought into the apartment by Junior. Moreover, that his original statement about the identification of the assailants was as a result of being threatened by the police and later due to threats by unarmed individuals. In this respect the Council took note that under oath, Shawn Baptiste, made no such claims of being threatened by the police, save for stating that he felt pressured to make his statement. He also confirmed that prior to trial, he and his mother received threats from relatives of Mr. Dial and Mr. Dottin, and reported this to a Sergeant Carrington, who confirmed the facts. As regards Ms. Henry, she claimed that her original statement was drafted for her and she was instructed to read and rehearse it; and gave such evidence at the trial. The Council noted that her evidence to the Court of Appeal was different, which declared that both her police statement and trial evidence was voluntarily given and true.25 32. On October 26, 1999, a further petition was presented to the Board of the Privy Council based on Shawn Baptiste’s and Alicia Henry’s retraction of their evidence, but was withdrawn and replaced with a petition seeking the reference of the case to the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago for consideration of fresh evidence. The case was referred on April 26, 2001 and heard by the court on July 5 and 6, 2001; the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions affirmed. The alleged victims appealed that decision to the Board of the Privy Council and special leave for the appeal was granted on February 20, 2003.26 33. Within the appeal 27 the Council recognized that Shawn Baptiste alone gave evidence identifying the appellants (Mr. Dial and Mr. Dottin). In the hearing, the Privy Council noted of the eyewitness evidence that:28 Shawn was far and away the most important prosecution witness: he alone gave evidence identifying the appellants, whom he knew as associates of Junior, as the killers. […] In one part of his evidence at the trial (although not his evidence identifying the appellants as the killers) Shawn is now conclusively shown to have lied. 34. This “lie” was uncovered by the contradictory evidence found within the ballistics expert report of June 4, 1998, which provided that the .44 revolver that was found within the apartment was not used within the attack and contained bullets within its chamber that in fact could not be fired from that gun. The report stated that “it is not possible to discharge .38 inch or 9mm ammunition from a .44 inch revolver other than by tampering with the ammunition”.29 35. The Council noted that the Court of Appeal recognized, after review of expert ballistic evidence, that Mr. Baptiste lied about his evidence with respect to the use of the gun found within the apartment by police but not with respect to the evidence identifying the attackers, which the Privy Council found to be consistent with his statements30. Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4, [17]. Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4. 24 Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4. 25 Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4., [21 and 22] 26 Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4. 27 Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4. 28 Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4., para. 2 and 3. 29 Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4, [17] and [26] 30 Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4, [14]. 22 23 6