C.E.'s sister. C.E. later became the prosecution's principal witness and only purported eyewitness to the crime. 2.3 The author was initially brought before the Portland Magistrates Court in connection -with his application for bail and for directions as to the most appropriate venue for the preliminary hearing. The Magistrate granted the author's application for a transfer of the venue of the preliminary hearing, as the author was well known in the Portland area and it was doubtful whether he would receive a fair trial there. More particularly, the author was well known to the business associates of the Magistrate himself and the author was known to have bad business relations with those associates. During the hearing of the application, the Magistrate allegedly said, apparently only as an aside, that if he were to try the author he would ensure that a capital sentence be pronounced. 2.4 Mr. Collins* preliminary hearing took place in Spanish Town, parish of St. Catherine, on 15 October 1981; he was ordered to stand trial for murder. Detective G., then stationed in a different parish (Kingston), nevertheless remained in charge of the police investigations. 2.5 The author's trial began in the St. Catherine Circuit Court, Spanish Town, on 7 January 1982; he was represented by F.P., Q.C., and junior counsel, A.W, In spite of the prosecution's contention that the author shot Mr. Johnson without provocation, no plausible motive for the killing could be advanced. The inference to be drawn from the prosecution's case was that Mr. Collins had sought to buy a car from a third party via the victim and that he shot Mr. Johnson to avoid paying the balance of the amount owed for the car. Throughout the proceedings, the author maintained that C.E. himself had committed the crime, and that he used the author's service weapon after removing it from the author's apartment. Mr. Collins further asserts that he never thought of not honouring his debt towards the deceased and maintains that the balance was paid pursuant to an agreement which he had arranged for his bank manager to prepare. The bank manager, D.A.., confirmed this version during the first trial. 2.6 During the trial in January 1982, several witnesses, including members of the author's family, testified on the author's behalf, confirming that he was at home when the victim was believed to have been shot. Five of the 12 days of the trial were devoted to testimony of defence witnesses. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury was unable to return a verdict. The author was ordered to be retried and remanded in custody. 2.7 The retrial began in the Home Circuit Court, Kingston, on 24 October 1983. Mr. Collins was represented by H.C., Q.C, The author submits that Detective G. continued to manipulate the judicial process as well as the jurors. Justice G., who had heard previous applications on behalf of the author in the Portland Magistrates Court, was assigned to hear the retrial; the author immediately complained to counsel that the judge was biased against him, in the light of the statement referred to in paragraph 2.3 above. H.C. told him that nothing could be done about this. 2.8 The author notes that on 26 October 1983, two witnesses who were present in court and ready to testify on his behalf, Ms. B.H. and Ms. Bl.H., saw three three members of the jury board a police car driven by Detective G.B1.H, -220-