GOVINDEN CJ
[1] This is a ruling on an application made by the prosecution, dated April 3, 2025, requesting for more time for their handwriting expert to hand over her expert report, The reply of the 1st and 2nd accused, (the Respondents) thereto, though, in principle, not objecting to the request for the extension of time, also raises certain other procedural issues, which will also be dealt with here. The application of the prosecution anses out of the Case Management Direction made on the 14th of March 2025.
[2] Upon consideration of the applicant's Notice of Motion, requesting an extension of time,
the court finds the prosecution request for the extension to be reasonable, just, and
appropriate given the circumstances surrounding the delays encountered by the prosecution
handwriting examiner in her process of analysis. Accordingly, more time would be given.
[3] On the other hand the respondents have made three specific requests in relation to the same proceedings in their reply.
[4] Firstly, they requested that the court orders the prosecution's handwriting expert to refer to their own comparator documents during her examination; the said documents being
allegedly the same ones used by the respondents own handwriting expert in his or her
examination. Having considered this request, the Court has come to the following
determination.
[5] In legal proceedings, the court bas specific limitations regarding how it can influence the
conduct of parties and their experts. Expert witnesses are retained to provide specialized
knowledge and opinions that assist the court in understanding complex issues. Their
independence is crucial for maintaining the integrity of their testimony. Each party has the
right to control how they instruct their expert witnesses. This includes decisions about
which documents to review and what methodologies to employ in forming opinions. Courts
generally do not have the authority to compel one party to direct their expert to utilize
another party's defence documents. This is rooted in the principle that each party must
present its case based on its own evidence and strategy. Forcing a party to use another's
documents could create an imbalance in how cases are presented, undermining fairness in
legal proceedings. Therefore, the first defence's request is denied.
[6] Conversely, the respondents also requested access to materials provided by the prosecution as comparator documents to their handwriting expert, The Court finds that this request aligns with the prosecution's duty of disclosure and is granted. The prosecution is ordered to provide a copy of their comparator documents to the defence together with a copy of the report. Given the limitations in our law with regards to the defence duty of disclosure, a reciprocal order on the respondents cannot be made at this juncture. Any original comparator documents used can be produced by the expert in his testimony.
[7] The third request is for the trial to recommence on the 28th of April 2025 instead of any
date after the 10th April as is being surmised by the prosecution. After careful consideration
of the reasons put forth for the proposed extension of time in the respondents' affidavit and
the position of the Republic, the Cou11finds that the physical presence of an expert witness
of a party in court whilst the evidence of the opposing party's expert is being led is not
necessary or even essential for an effective cross-examination. The court recognizes that
while the expert's physical presence can enhance a party's case, it is not a strict requirement if the party has had sufficient time and opportunities to prepare for and seek expert opinion on the issues at hand, as is the situation in the present case. It is quite clear to this Court that the respondents has demonstrated that they have had ample time and opportunities to prepare for this trial phase. At any rate, they would have sufficient time to review all relevant materials, including any reports submitted by the prosecution's expert and make them available to their own expert for comments and assessments, something that would make them capable of effectively challenging the credibility and reliability of this
prosecution's evidence. Moreover, the expert can make himself or herself available on an
online platform during the course of such testimony, if such an application is made.
[8] Given these findings, it is found not appropriate to adjoum the trial for the length of time
suggested by the respondents and the case is accordingly set for recommencement of trial
on the 14th of April at 9.30 am.
Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 9th of April 2025.
Govinden CJ