The trial of Defendant, Justin D’Angelo Ramoon, will continue after Justice Charles Quin dismissed the Defendant’s lawyer’s request for a no case to answer submission on 22^nd January, 2013.

Lopez is charged with attempted murder and wounding with intent Andrew Santangelo Lopez on Saturday 25^th August 2012.

The trial began on the afternoon of 16^th January and at the close on 21^st January the Defendant’s counsel made the no case submission.

The submission particulars are:

The   entire   Prosecution   case   depends   on   the   identification   of   the Defendant by its chief witness, Andrew Lopez, who is also the victim of the attack, and submits that this witness’ evidence cannot be relied upon because the lighting was poor and the Complainant was stabbed from behind  – making him unable to turn around and properly observe his attacker.

Defence counsel highlights the fact that there is no other evidence to support Mr. Lopez’s evidence of identification.

There is no evidence of the Defendant being at the scene – either from other persons who were nearby or from CCTV footage.

There are no clothes or any other evidence to corroborate Mr. Lopez’s identification of the Defendant.

Mistakes can occur based on recognition and any other evidence does not support the identification of Ramoon by Lopez. In particular, Defence counsel, Ben Tonner, noted that the RCIPS investigating officer could not produce notes proving that Lopez had supplied a physical description of Ramoon whilst he was in hospital recovering from his wounds.

Although there were a number of people   at the   scene, nobody   has   come   forward   to   give   evidence   of identification   of the Defendant.   No clothing has been seized to link the Defendant to the attack. There is no forensic evidence to support Mr. Lopez’s identification of the Defendant and, there is no CCTV footage of the attack on Lopez.

There is no evidence that the Defendant was at the location on the night in question and that   the fact   that   Mr. Lopez   picks   out   the Defendant’s photo as number 7 on the photo spread does not corroborate Lopez’s initial identification of the Defendant as the attacker.

The submission was supported by claims the quality of Lopez’s identification is poor, as it was a fleeting glance made in difficult conditions, the attack was unexpected as Lopez was talking to a friend “in the wee hours of the morning” when he was stabbed from behind, he was afraid, in pain and trying to get away. All the injuries to Lopez were to his back and side only.

Trevor Ward, for the Crown, rejected the submissions saying this was a case of recognition, which is more reliable than identification. Lopez had known the Defendant as “Pott” or Justin for approximately 10 years. This has not been challenged.

He also said:

“Lopez had a good opportunity   to see the face of the Defendant as he was only one foot away when he turned around and recognised him by looking at his face and there was nothing to obstruct his view. Lopez was also so close to Ramoon he heard him say, “Where is your mouth now/” – a reference to an incident a week earlier and he saw Ramoon’s mouth as Ramoon said these words.”

Judge Quin in his analysis and conclusion said:

“Defence submits that because of the low light, the speed of the attack and the fact that Mr. Lopez turned his back, he could not have got a good look at the Defendant.  Mr. Ward disagreed with this submission.

“Mr. Lopez said that he felt a stab in his back and he turned around and he saw “Pott.” He saw him from his waist up to his head. Mr. Lopez also said that “Pott” was “right there and right in front of me.”

“Mr. Lopez described the light poles and said that they were lit up and “the guys were playing dominoes” in an area close to where he was standing. Mr Lopez said he had known Pott for about 10 years – from their time in school when they would end up in the suspension unit together. Mr. Lopez said he also remembered Pott riding his dirt bike down at the marl pit behind CUC.

“Mr. Lopez told the Court that he sees the Defendant around and he knows the Defendant lives behind where he works in Central Plaza and, he is sure that it is the Defendant who attacked him.

“Mr. Lopez said the Defendant’s attack on him related to the issue between them from the week prior -an argument about scooters.

“Mr. Lopez said that in trying to get away from the Defendant’s repeated stabs he tripped over a piece of cement, but the Defendant kept pulling his shirt and kept stabbing him. Mr. Lopez said he never got a chance to get away and the Defendant stayed on him, attacking  him.

“After the Complainant received the stab wounds, he then saw the Defendant run back towards the Sea Inn.

“Mr. Lopez described the incident as lasting some 25-30 seconds and the Defendant was wearing a black shirt and a white cap. He said nothing was obstructing his view. When asked by Defence counsel why he did not give any description of the Defendant in his statement he said, “Because I know who it was.”’

The Judge noted the only evidence regarding the lighting was from the Scenes of Crime employee who described the crime scene on the 29^th August as “fairly bright”.

Judge Quin accepted there was no supporting evidence of Lopez’s identification on the night in question but he could not concur with the Defence’s claim the quality of identification evidence by Lopez was poor.

The judge said he did not find the identification evidence was poor and made in conditions so difficult the Complainant could not have seen and identified his assailant.

He therefore dismissed the application and ordered the trial to continue.