A judge this week said there were “grossly inherent weaknesses” in evidence put forth by prosecutors in the trial of three men accused of a 2022 murder and that the case “imploded” in front of a jury.

Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe made the remarks in a written explanation for his decision to dismiss the proceedings in May.

While prosecutors offered a nolle prosequi — a legal step indicating that they did not wish to continue with the case at that time — Mr Justice Wolffe instead instructed the jury to deliver verdicts of not guilty.

In a written ruling published online, he said it would have been unfair to permit the nolle, which would have given the Crown a year to relaunch the prosecution.

Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told The Royal Gazette yesterday that an appeal against the judge’s decision has been launched.

Mr Justice Wolffe wrote in his ruling: “Crucial to my decision to not allow the prosecution to enter the nolle prosequi were the grossly inherent weaknesses and inconsistencies in the evidence which the prosecution was able to adduce at trial, and relatedly, the devastating way in which the prosecution’s case imploded before the watchful eyes of the jury.”

He found: “It would deprive the defendants of their constitutional right of having a fair trial and of being found ‘not guilty’ in circumstances where the prosecution have not proven its case against them beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The hallmark of our criminal justice system is that an accused person is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and that if the prosecution fail to prove the guiltiness of an accused person then he/she must be found ‘not guilty’.

“The entering of a nolle prosequi in this case would totally circumvent this fundamental and overriding principle.”

Ms Clarke said: “We are of the opinion that the learned judge has erred in law in this decision, and we have appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.”

Isaiah Smith, Omari Williams and Jaja DeSilva had been charged with the August 2022 murder of Marcus Wilson, which all three denied.

Over the course of the Supreme Court trial, jurors heard from one witness, Joshua White, who said that on the evening of the fatal stabbing he had driven the three defendants to Mr Wilson’s home.

While he said a scuffle broke out, he told the court he could not tell who the aggressor was.

Mr White added that, while he had not seen the full altercation, he did not see any of the defendants with a knife and had no idea anyone was seriously injured until he was arrested the following morning.

A second witness, John Cox, told the court that he had seen a car drive up to Mr Wilson’s home, but that he had not seen a fight, only the aftermath.

Shortly after the evidence concluded, in the absence of the jury, the Crown told the court that it had filed a nolle prosequi indicating that prosecutors did not wish to pursue the case further.

Mr Justice Wolffe, however, ordered the jury to find all three men not guilty.

The judge said in his written decision that the evidence given by Mr Cox on the stand differed significantly from what was said by the witness in statements to police in which he described the fight.

While Mr Justice Wolffe said it was reasonable for the prosecution to want to know why Mr Cox did not say in court what he told police, he added that the rest of the case was “still extremely problematic”.

“No doubt Mr Cox’s evidence would have significantly assisted the prosecution’s case if he came up to proof, but there was still inherent weaknesses and inconsistencies in and between the police statements of Mr Cox and Mr White in respect of the individual and collective culpability of the defendants,” he said.

“Further, and as stated earlier, during his evidence in court Mr White did not give evidence as to which of the defendants had knives or as to which of the defendants would have threatened Mr Wilson.”

Mr Justice Wolffe added that it would not be right or fair in the circumstances to allow prosecutors to use a nolle prosequi as a tourniquet to protect their “haemorrhaging” case.

“That is not and should not be the purpose or effect of a nolle prosequi,” Mr Justice Wolffe wrote. “If it were permissible, then this would leave open limitless opportunities for the prosecution to abruptly stop any trial at any time, when its case is going badly, regroup, and then resuscitate the case later ― within a year.

“This surely would be an affront to every tenet underlining the proper administration of justice and the fair treatment of accused persons, who would, despite a botched trial by the prosecution, would have to endure further stress and anxiety (and possibly financial costs) for an unknown period of time waiting for the Sword of Damocles to precipitously fall. I reiterate, this cannot be right or fair.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers