Swift J
<doc> 1 IN THE GRAND
2 CRIMINAL SID
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
INDICTMENT NO.
REGINA
V
RAZIEL JEFFERS
Mr. Andrew Radeliffe O.C.
0060/2010
As instructed by
16
17
18
19
20
21
Before:
23
24 Heard:
25
26
27
28
29
Ms. Tricia Hutchinson for
Mr. Michael Wolkind O.C.
for the Defendant
The Hon. Mr. Justice Maj
(Actg.)
26 March 2014
RULING ON
THE APPLICATION OF THE DEFENCE
TO EXCLUDE PART OF THE EVIDENCE OF
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STEPHEN BROUGHAM
As instructed by
Jason & McGrath
Colm Swift Q.C.
30
31
32 I. The P
33 evidence
34 Meag
35
36
37
Ruling on Application to
R v. Raziel Jeffers, Coram
INCERKING THE WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER
Execution intends to adduce and the Defence seeks to exclude of Deputy Commissioner Brougham concerning the
in Martinez who gave evidence earlier this week.
Source: (Evidence of Deputy Commissioner Concerning the Witness Protection Order, Sd/2010, (Actg.). Date: 26.3.14
2
Include part of the
protected witness
amended 26 July 2010.
Page I of 4 </doc>
<doc> 1 2 The
2 argue
3 Miss
4 Then
5
6
7 and
8
It is
9
10
11 3. It is
12 the co
not
would
fides
17 4. In or
18 but on
19
20
21 Prot
22 lie as
23 were
24 rever
25 expe
26
Ruling on Application to
R. v. Reziel Jeffers Corp.
motions were addressed to Miss Martinez concerning the ded on her and on her child by the Cayman Government
Action Program. It was specifically suggested to her that she
a result of receiving such financial 'benefits' and that the
'shocking'. It was suggested in terms that she had moun
ged and greed. The use of the term 'greed' can only refer to
ded on her during her time in the Witness Protection Program.
Exemplary Evidence of Deputy Commissioner Concerning the Witness Protection Service (Reziel) Date: 26.3.14
Amounts of money
at via the Witness
she was 'obliged' to
sums spent on her
led a campaign of
the sums of money
m.
Her motion to 09/2010
Page 2 of 4 </doc>
<doc> 1 5. The C
2 exami-
3 fact th-
4 entitle
5 an un-
6 she is
7 only e-
8 and th-
own submits that the evidence they seek to adduce arises
nation. They argue that the defence in cross examination at Miss Martinez was in the Witness Protection Program
it to rebut the clear suggestion that she is profiting from the
meritorious member of the Program. The evidence is tended to maintain her, that she is not therefore profiting
at there were proper and reasonable grounds for admitting hi-
out of that cross-
rst introduced the
and that they are
Program and was
red to show that
she was in
from the Program
or to the Program.
9 10 6. I con-
11 purpose
12 Progra-
13 any su-
14 theref-
15
16 7. The ev-
17
18
19
made that the evidence of Deputy Commissioner Broughton is
of showing that Miss Martinez qualified for, and was
m on reasonable grounds and that she has received only ex-
ploits which could be regarded as profiting from the Program
re tends to rebut the suggestion that Miss Martinez was not
idence is therefore admissible.
is tendered for the
limited to, the
senses rather than
n. The evidence
invited by greed.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ruling on Application to
By: Raziel Jeffers, Counsel
Source: Evidence of Deputy Commissioner Concerning the Witness Protection Scheme, Safety Viale, J. Date: 26.3.14
Index No. 60/2010 </doc>
<doc> 1 2 8 I ind
3 appe
4 Com
5 state
6 Prog
7 faces
8 expe
and those reasons
evidence of Deputy
with his witness
at a witness to the
said that the witness
had paid because Miss
9 March
10 is in
11
12
13
14 Dated this the 26
15
16
17 anez is still not permitted to work in the jurisdiction where
object of the Program that witnesses should become self-
th March 2014
he now resides. It
is ficient in time.
18
19 Honourable Mr. 20 Acting Judge of
Ruling on Application to
R v. Rachel Jeffers, Core
Justice Malcolm Swift Q.C.
the Grand Court
Excerpt (Evidence of Deputy Commissioner Concerning the Witness Protection Say: p. 207 (Actg.). Date: 26.3.14
Herewith, No. 60/2010.
Page 4 of 4 </doc>