Rowe’s lawyers raise questions about analysis in rape case

Committal proceedings in the rape case against accused Parliamentarian Neil Rowe should take place in a week’s time.

In the meantime, Magistrate Deidre McKenna has requested that the prosecution provide “concrete” information on forensic analysis in the matter following submissions by Rowe’s defence team of Michael Lashley KC and Ralph Thorne KC.

Rowe is on $10 000 bail on a charge that he had sexual intercourse with a woman on September 18, 2022, without her consent or was reckless as to whether she consented.

When his case was called before the Oistins Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, Inspector Glenda Carter-Nicholls served the defence with the final disclosure in the matter.

The prosecutor informed the court that all that was outstanding was the forensic analysis, and, as such, the prosecution was requesting an adjournment for committal proceedings to be undertaken at the next sitting.

However, Lashley and Thorne told the magistrate that there was contradicting information on the issue of the analysis which was “crucial” to the defence’s case.

Lashley disclosed that the defence sent correspondence to the Commissioner of Police (COP) on February 17 and on June 2, 2023, in relation to DNA evidence as mentioned by the then prosecutor at the Oistins Magistrates’ Court on January 26, 2023.

“In fact, the prosecutor at the time said that they had sent off the exhibits,” said the lawyer who added that another letter was sent to the COP on August 15, again requesting disclosure with respect to the DNA test.

“Lo and behold, we received correspondence on August 21 from Assistant Commissioner of Police David Griffith, and he said, ‘With reference to your correspondence dated August 15, 2023, this serves to advise that arrangements are being made to have those tests done overseas’.

“So, in one breath, the prosecutor said that they have sent them overseas already to be tested . . . now all of a sudden . . . we received a letter stating that arrangements are now being put in place to have those tests done. I find it strange and . . . the defence would want to know more on how soon the arrangements can be made . . . . We would need it as it is crucial to our defence,” the defence lawyer said.

In his submission, Thorne charged that Rowe “is at a severe disadvantage”.

“We came back with the expectation that we would receive those results . . . . What ACP Griffith writes is inconsistent with that . . . . He has rights, and he has the right to be able to rely on what is said in court in respect of his defence; what has been said in court conflicts with what has been sent in the official correspondence. We are put at a disadvantage because we do not know what is going on,” Thorne said.

The King’s Counsel further charged that investigations were being conducted after their client had been charged and taken before the law court, and “that is a serious thing”.

In response, the prosecutor said that the defence received official written correspondence on the status of the analysis and “I know as much as he knows”.

However, Magistrate McKenna explained that the absence of the analysis did not stop the court from moving ahead with the case.

“If it is that I adjourn it [the case] for committal and it [analysis result] is not here on that date and an application is made, it will be considered. But in the grand scheme of things, many matters with all the other evidence being available have been committed with the analysis being produced at a later stage.

“It will not stop this from going forward unless you have other submissions that would tell me why a prima facie case has not been made out. If I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out and it can be committed without the analysis at this stage, it will be committed, and that is my position, so I am adjourning it for committal. You have everything except that analysis,” the magistrate said.

She also told the prosecution that she wanted to know whether the analysis had been “sent off already for testing or it is still here . . . so we have an idea of how long”.

“We need to know for sure. Please have some concrete information as to the state of the analysis,” Magistrate McKenna instructed.

The matter was then adjourned until September 6, 2023.