Trinidad appeal Court upholds a 20-year jail term for a man convicted on drug charges

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad– The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Stephen Locking. He is in 2019 and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment after he was convicted of trafficking 21.74 kilograms of cocaine.

The cocaine was found by police following a search of a house in Diego Martin, west of here, in 2001, where they found 45 orange-juice tins containing cocaine, a solid block of cocaine weighing 25 grams, in the kitchen, and 161 orange-juice containers, which also had cocaine and acetone, weighing 89 kilograms, in the trunk of his wife’s SUV, which he was using at that time.

During his trial, Gocking testified that the apartment belonged to a relative, and he was there “for a romantic interlude” with a young woman who was not his wife.

In appealing his conviction,  Gocking listed five grounds of appeal, four of which were dismissed by Justices of Appeal Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, Mark Mohammed, and Malcolm Holdip. The fifth complaint was withdrawn at the appeal hearing in February 2021.

In their ruling, the judges held that the judge’s assistance to the jury, particularly on the credibility and reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses, “was impeccable.”

Two of Gocking’s complaints were that the High Court judge did not properly direct the jury on his exculpatory evidence – evidence that can prove a person’s innocence – of his telling the police he lived with his wife at a different location and that he lost the full benefit of a good character direction as a result.

However, in reversing a prevision decision on the issue, the judges said there is now “no requirement for the judge to direct the jury that the appellant’s good character could be taken into account in determining whether his wholly exculpatory out of court statement was true.”

Assistant Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Sabrina Dougdeen-Jaglal, also disagreed with Gocking’s complaints, pointing out that the judge did raise his fabrication defense but accepted that the High Court judge did not specifically address the issue of where he said he lived. However, she said the State’s case was that he had control of the apartment, not that he owned it.

“Love nest or drug nest – he was using this place. The State did not have to prove he lived there but that he had control of the apartment. He had control, whether or not he lived there,” she argued.