Accusing prosecutors of “unreasonable” delays and a “lamentable failure” to produce required disclosure, a judge recently halted a three-year-old case against a Virgin Islands police officer accused of indecently assaulting a minor.
Nodu Emelandu, who has maintained his innocence, was facing six counts of indecent assault against the same young person in 2020 and 2021, according to a ruling by High Court Justice Richard Schneider.
But after Mr. Emelandu was charged in November 2021, prosecutors delayed producing required disclosure for so long that the judge ultimately agreed to a defence request to stay the proceedings.
As a result, the matter never went to trial, and defence attorney Valerie Gordon told the Beacon that the decision “ends the case” against Mr. Emelandu.
“To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Emelandu is back on the [police] force,” Ms. Gordon stated. “There is no case against him based on the ruling of His Lordship that the proceedings are stayed.”
Police Information Officer Akia Thomas-Nero told the Beacon yesterday that she was not “at liberty” to provide information about Mr. Emelandu’s status on the force.
‘Alarming’
In his April 10 ruling, Mr. Schneider acknowledged prosecutors’ claim that their office had been facing staffing issues while “transitioning.”
But these excuses, he wrote, fell short of explaining the longstanding delays in producing required disclosure.
“The day-to-day vagaries of office management are inevitable; these are not circumstances that warrant or excuse unreasonable delay,” he wrote.
Ultimately, he added, prosecutors’ filings included “no clear explanation for the crown’s failure to provide the material.”
The judge also stated that no crown attorney was assigned carriage of the prosecution during the nearly three-and-a-half years of proceedings against Mr. Emelandu.
This failure, he wrote, was “nothing short of ‘alarming.’”
“Mr. Emelandu has had counsel retained and has been ready to proceed since his arrest (subject to receiving complete disclosure),” Mr. Schneider wrote. “The defence has pursued disclosure through correspondence with the Office of the [Director of Public Prosecutions] and at several reporting dates before the court.”
To help mitigate such issues in the future, the judge suggested that the ODPP be run “more like a law firm.”
“Perhaps if a crown attorney were assigned to each matter/file as it made its first appearance in Magistrates’ Court and followed it through to completion, we would not be where we are today,” Mr. Schneider wrote. “With ‘ownership’ of a file comes accountability, responsibility, continuity, and an interest in moving the matter along as expeditiously and efficiently as possible.”
Director of Public Prosecutions Tiffany Scatliffe and other prosecutors did not respond to requests for comment.
10-plus adjournments
Mr. Emelandu, a 16-year veteran of the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force, first appeared before a magistrate on Nov. 29, 2021, and he was granted bail of $45,000, according to Mr. Schneider’s ruling.
At the time, the “court was informed that disclosure would be made,” Mr. Schneider wrote.
On Dec. 12, 2022, Mr. Emelandu was arraigned in High Court, and he pleaded not guilty, the judge wrote. But after that, the matter was adjourned more than 10 times and the trial was rescheduled four times to accommodate the crown’s delayed disclosure, according to the ruling.
By Feb. 17, 2025, the ODPP still had not produced complete disclosure, and Justice Rajiv Persad ordered it to do so by March 31.
At the time, Mr. Schneider wrote, the outstanding material included a transcript and audible DVD audio recordings.
“These DVDs apparently relate to two interviews of the complainant at two different points in time,” he added. “There is said to be a material discrepancy between the two interviews.”
Missed deadline
The prosecution missed the March 31 deadline to supply the materials, which still weren’t ready at a case-management conference on April 4.
Instead, Principal Crown Counsel Tracy Vidale requested another adjournment, telling the court she had just received the case file, the ruling stated.
Two days later, on April 6 — a Sunday one day before the most recent scheduled trial date — the ODPP claimed it had finally completed disclosure, according to the ruling.
But Mr. Schneider dismissed the crown’s application to adjourn and granted Ms. Gordon’s request for a stay of proceedings, citing “unreasonable delays” in bringing the matter to trial.
“It is clear the reason this matter has not been able to proceed is that the crown has not provided the defence with complete disclosure,” he wrote.
When is ‘enough enough’?
He added that the ODPP acknowledged that the defence was entitled to the disclosure it sought.
“This is not a case where the defence has contributed to the delay and then turned around to say that the matter has taken too long,” he wrote. “The question before the court is, ‘At what point is enough enough?’ At what point will the court step in and halt the prosecution with the extreme remedy of a stay of proceedings?”
Mr. Emelandu did not respond to requests for comment.