Gruelling day of dramatics as darkness descends

It was one of the few times spaces appeared on the usually packed wooden benches at the back of Courtroom 5.

It was certainly the only occasion darkness had fallen on the other side of the high windows.

There have been many gruelling sessions in the past six weeks of the Michaela McAreavey murder trial, but none have run anywhere near as long as day 25. Some wondered if it would ever end.

Judge Prithviraj Fecknah certainly appeared ready for an all-nighter.

“We are here as long as you want to go on,” he told state counsel Mehdi Manrakhan.

His tone was a lot more mellow than it had been four hours previously when the prosecutor had objected to a defence suggestion to adjourn the examination of Avinash Treebhoowon for the day.

It was not the legal issue that vexed him, more Mr Manrakhan’s manner.

The lawyer had expressed incredulity that the defence’s questioning of Mr Treebhoowon was set to go into a third day.

“We have never seen this before, it’s unprecedented,” he said.

The judge initially appeared empathetic.

“I understand the objection of state, but we have to be humane in our approach, this gentleman has been standing on his feet since 9.30am.”

At that Mr Manrakhan made an interruption he would live to regret.

“He can have a chair,” he declared, obviously too flippantly for the judge’s liking. Justice Fecknah was almost incandescent.

“You can be insolent with your friend,” he said furiously. “I am not your friend, I am the judge in this case.”

The perplexed counsel said he had only suggested the accused take a seat.

“I am not referring to that,” said the judge. “I am referring to your tone and the way you addressed me.” He demanded an immediate apology, which the barrister delivered.

“I will not,” the judge continued, “I will not take any form of insolence from the bar.” At that he rose to his feet and marched out of court.

Those who thought the dramatic departure would herald the end of the day’s proceedings were in for a shock. Justice Fecknah returned a short time later and questioning resumed.

He made no direction as to a likely end time and almost four hours later Mr Treebhoowon, now seated, was still testifying.

By then it had got to Mr Manrakhan’s turn to cross-examine. As the clock hovered around 6pm, defence barrister Rama Valayden rose to his feet to ask if the time had come to call it a day.

The judge insisted that call was not his. Turning to Mr Manrakhan, he explained: “We take your stand now, it can’t be in my hands, it’s up to you now. I took it your objection earlier was because you didn’t want to split the evidence, that’s why we’re all here at 6pm. So move on.”

After consulting with his colleagues, Mr Manrakhan signalled his intent to proceed. But then came an unlikely intervention from the defendant himself. “My lord, my back is aching,” Mr Treebhoowon announced.

Justice Fecknah decided he had to retake control of the timeframe. “The witness is complaining of back pain,” he said. “I think since we put ourselves as respecting human rights I will adjourn for today.”

A bell in a nearby church was ringing as everyone emerged into the dark courtyard outside.

John McAreavey and his family members were illuminated only by the lights of waiting cameras.

If the judge had shown some sympathy to Mr Treebhoowon at the close of the day, his attitude was somewhat harder in the morning when the defendant once again broke down and cried as he recounted claims of alleged police torture.

Justice Fecknah acceded to his lawyer’s request for a brief adjournment.

But when court restarted he had a firm message for the accused. “We are all human here, it’s impossible to separate our emotions from our thoughts. But these circumstances happened last year. You’re a man, you should be able to control your emotions.

“I know it’s impossible to separate your memory from your thoughts, but please make an effort.”

In a day of judicial admonishments, Mr Treebhoowon’s barrister Sanjeev Teeluckdharry did not escape censure.

Objecting to one of Mr Manrakhan’s questions, he proffered a potential explanation for the defendant.

When Mr Treebhoowon repeated the said same explanation when he was again posed the question by the state lawyer, the judge stepped in. “Do not use the guise of an objection to give the witness an answer,” the eagle-eyed judge warned Mr Teeluckdharry.

“Because that is what you did there.”