36. The JCPC further made the following observations: Notwithstanding that PC Seepersad had earlier given evidence of finding the .44 gun under the sheet on the mattress, Shawn was quite emphatic in saying that this was the gun which the appellant Maxwell had been firing at Junior and which then fell from Maxwell's hand as they struggled […] Although defence counsel pointed to this discrepancy in the evidence, relatively little was made of it. Prosecuting counsel for his part reminded the jury that Shawn's scuffle with Maxwell had occurred close to the mattress and he poured scorn on the suggestion, implicit in defending counsel's addresses, that the .44 had not been used by the attackers but more likely belonged to Junior or Shawn himself. He made it plain that the State's case was indeed that the .44 had been one of the guns used in the attack before it had fallen from Maxwell's hand. (No one suggested that perhaps only one of the attackers had fired at Junior, unsurprisingly given the unchallenged expert evidence that 3 of the 4 spent .38 bullets found by PC Seepersad in the mattress had been fired from one firearm, the fourth from another.31 […] supplementary petition dated 18 February 1999, fresh evidence in the form of a report from a ballistics expert, John Burns, dated 4 June 1998, strongly suggesting that the .44 revolver had not after all been used in the attack. The report stated in terms that "it is not possible to discharge .38 inch or 9mm ammunition from a .44 inch revolver other than by tampering with the ammunition" (as to which there was no sign whatever).32 37. The retractions by Shawn Baptiste and Alicia Henry in the affidavits were found to be untrue, save for the evidence of Shawn Baptiste’s assertion about the revolver used in the crime. The JCPC therefore considered it necessary to look logically at the evidence in the case to decide whether the lie about the revolver found in the apartment (which Shawn Baptiste claimed was the weapon used by an assailant) was so central to Shawn Baptiste’s identification of the attackers as to throw real doubt upon it. The Court reasoned that the Trinidad Court of Appeal did take up this consideration and remained satisfied on the essential integrity of the identification; and therefore, was entitled to regard the convictions as safe and dismiss the appeal. The Privy Council accordingly dismissed the appeal.33 38. According to the information provided by the petitioners, not contested by the State,34 on January 12, 2005, the State Party’s London Solicitors confirmed in writing to Simons Muirhead & Burton, solicitors, that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago had accepted the JCPC decision in Charles Matthew,35 and would commute the sentences of those affected, which included the alleged victims. The petitioners provide, however, that local media reports in June 2005 indicated that the Advisory Committee on the Power of Pardon were scheduled to consider the death row inmates’ case; which was followed by a statement by the Attorney General to the House of Representatives on June 6, 2005, outlining his intention to execute all those on death row.36 The petitioners provide that on June 10, 2005, the State, acting through its Ministry of National Security, informed the victims in writing of its intention to convene hearings in respect of their sentences in order to consider issuing warrants of execution; the State also indicated its intention to execute as early as June 14, 2005.37 39. A constitutional motion was filed on June 13, 2005 for a declaration that execution would be unlawful. A conservatory order was granted by the Port of Spain High Court on June 13, 2005 imposing temporary stays on execution. The constitutional motion was granted and on August 15, 2008, the sentences of the alleged victims were commuted to life imprisonment.38 However, according to the petitioners’ allegations not contested by the State, while the commutation process was ongoing, the alleged victims were unable to begin rehabilitation under a life sentence and were not benefiting from sentence reviews at four yearly intervals.39 Ibid, para 14 and 15. Ibid, para 17. 33 Dial and another v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2005] UKPC 4. 34 Written submissions of the Petitioner – October 18, 2005 – Saul Lehrfreund, Parvais Jabber, Simons Muirhead & Burton. 35 Charles Matthew v The State (2004) 64 WIR 412. 36 Written submissions of the Petitioner – October 18, 2005 – Saul Lehrfreund, Parvais Jabber, Simons Muirhead & Burton. 37 Revised Petition for and on behalf of the alleged victims, dated April 18, 2008. 38 Revised Petition for and on behalf of the alleged victims, dated April 18, 2008. 39 Revised Petition for and on behalf of the alleged victims, dated April 18, 2008. 31 32 7