These are the facts of the matter:

Prosecution Facts:

1. Around 1:30pm on Sunday 9^th May 2010 the victim age 10 of Top Road Pembroke was at a shed situated opposite her home seated on an old car seat next to the said shed.
2. Shortly thereafter the victim observed a man of East Indian descent, tall, beard on his face, brown in complexion wearing black long jeans and a jersey with a black plastic bag in his hand walking towards her from the Main Road. The victim saw him clearly as nothing was obstructing her view of him and the weather was good and a bit sunny.
3. The said man then came and sat next to her on the old car seat. The said man then offered the victim four single dollars Trinidad and Tobago currency, she refused however, the man pushed it into her pocket. Someone by the name of "Tallman" was in the shed at the time and he poked his head out a window from the shed and asked the victim if she knew the man and she replied "no". Tallman then told the victim to return to her home.
4. The victim returned to her home and shortly thereafter returned to the shed. The victim then saw the same Indian man appear back again. The man then asked the victim to come with him and he began to drag her by the arm into a cocoa field.
5. In the cocoa field the accused was put to lay down on the ground and was told by the accused to take off her clothes. The accused then pulled down the victim pants and underwear and began chooking her vagina with his finger.
6. The accused then began to spreading newspapers on the ground in the coca field. The accused then ran but the accused ran after her and caught her and brought her back to the area where he was spreading the newspaper.
7. Shortly thereafter the witness KJ came into the coca field and took hold of the man who eventually ran away. The victim was then returned to her home which she did.
8. The victim was later taken to the Roxborough Police Station where she made a report in the presence of her mother. She was then taken to the Scarborough Regional Hospital where she was medically examined in the presence of the complainant and her mother.
9. On Tuesday 11^th May 2010 the victim attended and identification parade in-company with her mother where she positively identified the accused.
10. It is submitted that the witness victim had four (4) opportunities to see the person she described as the tall Indian man:

(a) when the man was approaching her from the main road

(b) when the man sat next to her on the old car seat

(c) when she returned to the shed and the man returned and dragged her into the coca

(d) when she was in the cocoa field with the man

(a) When the man was approaching her from the main road

1. The evidence of the witness as to this opportunity to see the tall Indian man is as follows:

• The man approached her from the main road
• There was nothing obstructing her view of the man whilst approaching her
• The main road is close to the shed where she was
• The weather was partly cloudy and a bit sunny so she saw him clearly.
• She saw the front of his body

(b) when the man sat next to her on the old car seat

9 . The evidence of the witness as to this opportunity to see the Tall Indian man is as follows:

• The man sat next to her on the old car seat
• They were side by side
• He was shoulder length distance away from her
• He spoke to her and when he spoke to her he turned and faced her
• Nothing was between her and the man
• Nothing was obstructing her view of him

(c) when she returned to the shed and the man returned and dragged her into the coca

• She saw the man
• He then began to drag her by the hand into the cocoa

(d) when she was in the cocoa field with the man

• In the coca field the man was directly over her
• She was able to see her face
• Nothing was obstructing her view of his face at this time

In totality of time the witness stated the first incident she observed the man would have been more than 5 minutes.

Whilst in the cocoa field a totality of time she observed him was not given.

1. The witness made a positive identification of the accused two (2) days after the offence (Tuesday 11^th May 2010).

1. The description of the assailant which the witness gave was "tall, Indian, beard wearing a black long jeans and jersey. This description fits the description of the accused.

1. It is submitted that the witness KJ had two (2) opportunities to see the person he recognized as a person who he knows by seeing:
2. When he saw him on the Main road
3. When he confront him in the cocoa field

1. When he saw him on the Main Road

• saw the man walking on the roadway towards where he was, thus facing his direction
• nothing was obstructing his view of him
• the weather was good (bright)
• when first saw him, he was approximately 100 feet away

1. when he confronted the accused in the coca field

• saw the Indian man who was about 4 feet away from him
• nothing was obstructing his view of him
• it was shady and he could have seen him clearly.

The witness further testified that the knew the man from before:

I have seen him before. I used to working on the road there. I working.

I used to see him passing going out one or two mornings. On the Cardiff Road.

Said he knew him five years before the incident happen.

The witness also testified he knew the man also in Milford Ct Road, I used to be working in standards. When I used to be working in Standards, I used to be seeing him every day, about 6 times per week.

I did see him often. I used to see him twice for the week.

The witness testified that he never know his name.

The witness stated he knew the man was living Cardiff up in the forest. A day I went in the bush, I met in the road, and he was cussing me...that was about a year some months prior.

The witness testified the last time prior to the incident would have seen him a week prior to that. He testified he saw him on the Cardiff road.

It is further submitted there is no evidence of collusion on the basis of the virtual complainant or KJ being prompted at the identification parade. Additionally, the defence never challenged the identification evidence of both witnesses (the defence challenged the composition of the lineup). The quality of the evidence as it relates to the identification is good as both witnesses view of the accused were not that of a fleeting glace. The defence at not time put to the witnesses that they fabricated or was mistaken as to their versions of the incident and the person who they saw on the 9^th May 2010.

Further, the victim stated in her evidence she identified the man who pulled her in the cocoa and assaulted her. This is the reason the victim stated she pointed him out she at no time said she pointed him due to the fact that he had a beard.

KJ also stated he pointed out the accused as the person who was involved in the incident as it relates to the victim

The defence at no time put to the witnesses particularly the states two main witness the victim and KJ that what they said was a lie/fabricated.

The evidence of the ID parade officer indicates an overall fairness in the conduct of the identification parade. Every effort that was practical was made to form an identification parade line up with persons of similar characteristics as the accused and who looked as close to the accused. As stated, there is no evidence of collusion or did any witness interact and speak to each other prior to the id parade.

THE VIRTUAL COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE IS COORBORATED BY KJ-

The victim testified that the accused dragged her from the shed on the main road and then into the coca field

KJ testified that he saw the accused with his arm around the virtual complainant on the main road and then proceeded into the coca.

The virtual complainant testified in her evidence in chief that Kerry and Joshua met her in the Cocoa field where the accused had her.

The victim further testified that someone said "what you doing the little child"

KJ in his testimony stated When he saw the accused in the coca Joshua asked what you doing here with the little girl.

The utterances made by the accused when confronted by the accused- all yuh do think what you thinking is he sister.

She was then asked what the man do to yuh and she told the witness KJ he was feeling she up.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ARREST:

The complainant testified whilst at station and recording the report from the victim she received a telephone message. As a result of this message, she in-company with another officer proceeded to Windward Road Pembroke in the vicinity of Steve's Bar.

Based on information from persons who was gathered at the location she observed the accused sitting in the vicinity of Steve's Bar. The complainant based on her observations of the accused and information she had received she conveyed him to station for safe keeping.

The complainant never said she arrested the Accused at Steve's Bar

There is no evidence to suggest prior to the accused becoming a suspect that the accused could not have left the station.

The complainant testified that the Accused became a suspect at the police station

UTTERANCES MADE BY THE ACCUSED

The complainant testified that on Monday 10^th May 2010 AT the police station she identified herself to the accused by showing him her Trinidad and Tobago Police identification card and informed him of the report that she was investigating and that he was a suspect in that report and cautioned him and told him of is rights and privileges and he replied, "That is Carpano daughter. Me and that old man have a little thing, he always cutting meh trees"

The utterances made by the accused was not challenged by the defence.

The utterances made by the accused to the complainant was not challenged as it relates to fabrication or was it put to the complainant the accused never made the statement as such it is accepted by the defence.

The utterances made by the accused, specifically his statements indicating familiarity with the victim's father and a dispute over tree cutting, suggest a prior relationship or acquaintance between the accused and the victim's father. These utterances are relevant to the case as they may indicate a motive or context for the alleged offense. The statement about a 'little thing' with the victim's father regarding tree cutting could be seen as a source of conflict or animosity, which could have influenced the accused's actions. These utterances should be considered by the court in determining whether there is a case to answer, as they help to explain the context or motive behind the alleged offense.

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE AND KJ

• The complainant received a telephone message while at the station, prompting her to go to an area in Pembroke. Although the contents of the message are unknown, the proximity of the accused to the location and the timing of the message in relation to the incident suggest a connection.
• KJ testimony that the accused ran from the cocoa and onto the main road in Pembroke provides insight into the accused's behavior and movements at the time of the incident.

• The complainant encountered a rowdy crowd near Steve's Bar, where she may have received information implicating the accused. This prompted her to take the accused to the station for safekeeping.
• These pieces of evidence, when considered together, create a coherent narrative suggesting that the accused was present at the scene of the crime and engaged in behavior consistent with the reported offense. This circumstantial evidence, while not direct, provides a credible basis for concluding that the accused committed the offense.

The State's case does not fall or stand solely on the identification parade. The evidence of KJ is one of recognition:

Recognition by KJ: KJ testimony is crucial as it involves recognition rather than a fleeting or unreliable identification. He testified that he knew the accused from before the incident, having seen him multiple times over several years in specific locations. This establishes a basis for recognition that is not dependent on a single, brief observation but on a series of encounters over an extended period.

Circumstantial Evidence:

Telephone Message: The complainant received a telephone message while at the station, prompting her to go to an area in Pembroke. Although the contents of the message are unknown, the proximity of the accused to the location and the timing of the message in relation to the incident suggest a connection.

Accused's Behavior: Kerry Job's testimony that the accused ran from the cocoa and onto the main road in Pembroke provides insight into the accused's behavior and movements at the time of the incident. This behavior is consistent with someone who may have been involved in the alleged offense and is fleeing the scene.

Confrontation by KJ AND JG: Both KJ AND JG confronted the accused in the cocoa field, indicating their proactive involvement in responding to the situation. This demonstrates their immediate and direct knowledge of the events as they unfolded, further corroborating the victim's account.

Response to Crowded Area: The complainant encountered a rowdy crowd near Steve's Bar, where she may have received information implicating the accused. This prompted her to take the accused to the station for safekeeping. This suggests that there was a heightened awareness or suspicion regarding the accused's involvement within the community.

Utterances by the Accused: The statements made by the accused, indicating familiarity with the victim's father and a dispute over tree cutting, suggest a prior relationship or motive that could explain the alleged offense. These utterances are relevant as they help establish a context or motive for the accused's actions.

Non-Challenge of Evidence: The defense did not challenge the identification evidence of both witnesses, nor did they challenge the statements made by the accused. This implies a level of acceptance or credibility in the evidence presented by the prosecution.

By considering these factors collectively, it becomes evident that the case against the accused is not solely reliant on the identification parade but is supported by a combination of recognition, circumstantial evidence, and the surrounding circumstances of the incident. This reinforces the prosecution's position that there is a prima facie case with cogent evidence to support the charges of kidnapping and serious indecency.

Based on these facts, how should I draft my closing argument as the prosecutor in this matter and what questions should I pose to the accused in this matter in cross-examination?