Sherleytine Ernesta’s murder trial |22 February 2023

Verdict to be delivered this coming Friday

The Supreme Court has set this coming Friday as the date for the verdict into the murder of Sherleytine Ernesta, the 21-year-old woman of Mont Plaisir, whose lifeless body was found in Bougainville on May 4, 2022, with multiple stab wounds, two days after she had been reported missing.

The trial of two persons, namely 44-year-old Lussel Labiche of Takamaka and 18-year-old Ashten Elisabeth of Anse Royale, started on January 15, 2023.

Friday’s court proceeding will start with a session between Chief Justice Rony Govinden and the jury, followed by his summing up, the deliberation and decision by the jury and the sentencing.

The state prosecution and defence counsels have been presenting their final closing submissions to the court since Monday this week before the nine-member jury can give their verdict against Lussel Labiche, who has been charged with conspiracy to commit the murder and murder and Ashten Elisabeth, who has been charged with conspiracy and aiding to commit the murder. Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

On the last day of presentation of submissions yesterday presided by Chief Justice Rony Govinden, state prosecutor, Hemanth Kumar, whose presentation had started on Monday, centered his intervention on the exhibits and confessions made by the two accused. He was being assisted by counsel Gulmette Leste.

Mr Kumar said that the confession statements by the two accused and exhibits tied them to the murder. These included, a white long-sleeved shirt seized along with a belt at Labiche’s residence, which was allegedly used to cover Sherleytine’s mouth, as he pinned her down, the knife which was used in the stabbing, the greytape that was used to seal her (Sherleytine) mouth and nose, and which were all found at the scene of the crime.

Other evidence found during the investigations included Labiche’s metallic coloured Daihatsu Sirion car parked in the vicinity, Aston’s notebook, which contains notes detailing killing acts towards Sherleytine, video footage and audio calls between the two accused, the bitter lemon bottle which contained the bitter cider mixed with the sleeping pills given to Sherleytine, which Mr Kumar said clearly pointed to Labiche and Elisabeth as being the ones behind the young woman’s murder.

Speaking about the statements – six were confessions made by Labiche and four by Elisabeth – Mr Kumar made it clear to the jury that in their judgment they could not use the confession of one accused against the other.

He noted that evidence showed that it was Labiche who killed Sherleytine while Elisabeth aided and encouraged him to kill her.

He said that it was Labiche who confessed to the killing of the young woman even though he later tried to shift the blame on to Elisabeth, in another confession.

Both counsel Clifford Andre representing Labiche as the first offender and counsel Audric Govinden representing Elisabeth as the second offender, said that while they felt sorry that Sherleytine had tragically lost her life, the prosecution lacks concrete evidence beyond reasonable doubt, to pin their clients to her murder.

In his presentation, counsel Andre said that no DNA test was done to the exhibits, as required in such cases, especially on the murder weapon which is supposed to be a white handle kitchen knife and the confession made by his client was held under duress given that four police officers were present during his interrogation that happened even before the body of Sherleytine was found and identified.

He noted that while the prosecution has said that his client’s confessions were not true why was it that two among the six confessions he made, were used as evidence against him.

For his part, Counsel Govinden said that the prosecution failed to show evidence and to give details of the conspiracy between Labiche and his client to commit the murder and to furthershow how she aided and abetted Labiche to commit the murder.

He stated that helping after a crime has happened is not aiding and abetting and that it is not known until today if Sherleytine had already passed away when Elisabeth lifted her body along with the first accused.

He said it is not considered a crime to give assistance after a crime has happened and his client did just that. He added that according to the law a person is charged with aiding OR abetting and not with aiding AND abetting at the same time as his client was being accused of.

He said his client was present in the video, which showed Labiche and Sherleytine having an altercation, but in which his client was not involved, and that the audio calls and the note book which contains notes of killing acts were related to his client’s admiration for crime movies, and showed no evidence of conspiracy by her with Labiche to kill the young woman.

Counsel Govinden was being assisted by counsel Efna Chang-Thiou.

Patrick Joubert