That too is noted.
Now, this is the ruling of the Court on the Prosecution's oral application:
The Prosecution's oral application for the disclosure of the statement of witness DCT-190 is on two grounds: Firstly, that the summary dated 12 May 2010, that is, the summary before us, is grossly inadequate; and secondly, that the witness's evidence-in-chief is at variance with the summary. The Prosecution cites two examples; namely, that while the summary shows that the AFRC was the organ or the faction that captured the CDF arms and ammunition at Kenema, the witness's testimony in chief ultimately points to the RUF as the ones who captured those arms.
The second alleged inconsistency is where the witness is stated in the summary to have been a member of the CDF, whereas in his evidence-in-chief the witness states he was a member of the Special Forces that fought alongside the CDF.
Now, the Defence, whilst conceding that the summary is indeed inadequate, does not agree that there are material inconsistencies between the witness's summary and his testimony in chief so as to warrant a disclosure of his statement. The Defence therefore opposed the disclosure, although they do not object to the adjournment sought by the Prosecution.
Now, to restate the jurisprudence on the issue, there is no blanket right for the Prosecution to see the statement of a Defence witness, but in each case the Trial Chamber retains the discretion to order such disclosure, depending on the circumstances of each case. The test for the Court to determine is whether the Prosecution has demonstrated such undue or irreparable prejudice that it would be in the interests of justice to order the disclosure of the statement.
We have also held that a witness summary is not meant to be a complete statement of everything that the witness will attest to, but must at least provide a reasonable indication, however brief, of the evidential areas to be covered by the witness in his testimony.
We have further held that where a summary is indeed grossly insufficient but not necessarily inconsistent with the witness's testimony, the appropriate remedy is for the Prosecution to be granted extra time to adequately prepare for cross-examination of that witness.
Now, in the present case the Defence have conceded that the summary pertaining to witness DCT-190 is indeed inadequate. Having heard the witness's testimony in chief, there is no doubt in the Trial Chamber's mind that there are a lot of material areas that have been covered in the witness's testimony about which no indication whatsoever was given in the summary. The Trial Chamber therefore finds that the summary is not only inadequate; it is grossly inadequate.
On the issue of inconsistencies, the Trial Chamber agrees with the Prosecution that the witness's testimony in chief, relating firstly to the capture of arms and ammunition in Kenema, is at variance with what is stated in his summary. The Chamber also agrees with the Prosecution that there is inconsistency between his testimony and summary in relation to his membership of the organisation known as the CDF. Both these inconsistencies are, in the Trial Chamber's view, material in nature.
Furthermore, this situation is complicated by the fact that the Defence earlier on this year filed a more detailed summary covering many of the areas that the witness has in fact testified upon, but then the Defence withdrew this summary and replaced it with a more scanty version now before us. It is not clear why this was done.
To complicate matters further, Defence counsel, after taking responsibility for the scanty summary that has been submitted - the scanty summary, has then submitted that the Defence did in fact prepare an updated summary that presumably would have contained more detail than the one at issue, but never got around to serving it on the Prosecution.
What is clear is that the net result of these various findings raises more questions than answers, as the Prosecution has rightly pointed out, and that ultimately the Prosecution would suffer undue prejudice if the statements were not disclosed.
In the premises, the Chamber orders the immediate disclosure of the witness statement or statements of witness DCT-190 to the Prosecution.
The Chamber also grants the Prosecution an adjournment to be able to prepare for cross-examination of this witness.
Now, we will determine the extent of the adjournment after hearing from Ms Hollis.
Ms Hollis, you have asked for an adjournment until the end of next week, which would ultimately give you one and a half weeks that you have asked for, but we were wondering whether you would be prepared to start on your cross-examination of this witness. If we merely interposed the next witness, had that next witness give their full testimony, that might well take us up to Thursday this week, and would you be able to start the testimony of the cross-examination of this witness, or not?