Counsel for jailed lawyer Kamal Worrell argued that allegations of assault should not have been heard by the Supreme Court as part of his murder trial.

Richard Horseman, for Worrell, said that the charges were unfairly revived for the murder trial and should have been time-barred from being heard.

Mr Horseman argued in the Court of Appeal that, while the jury in the murder trial had heard evidence that the accusations had been withdrawn, they did not hear details about the sworn testimony given by the complainant stating that she had made up the allegations.

He further said that the descriptions of the assault claims were used to suggest how the murder could have unfolded despite a lack of forensic evidence in the case.

Mr Horseman added: “This is why it was important for the prosecution to get the assault charges in.”

Kamal Worrell was found guilty in January 2024 of murdering Chavelle Dillon-Burgess, the mother of his child, on an unknown date between April 10 and June 11, 2020.

Ms Dillon-Burgess was reported missing by her family on April 30, 2020, and has still not been found despite island-wide searches.

Worrell maintained his innocence, telling the Supreme Court during his trial that Ms Dillon-Burgess had walked out of the home that they shared with their child after an argument on April 11, 2020.

He said she briefly returned days later only to collect personal items, but he had not seen her since.

Worrell claimed that he had never acted violently towards Ms Dillon-Burgess and had only ever acted to defend himself when she lashed out at him.

However, prosecutors suggested that Worrell felt as though Ms Dillon-Burgess was ruining his career with her allegations of violence and urged the jury to consider his actions before and after her disappearance.

A jury found Worrell guilty of murdering Ms Dillon-Burgess by a majority verdict, further convicting him of six counts of common assault by unanimous verdict and one count by majority verdict.

Worrell, who filed an appeal against his conviction before his sentencing, was sentenced to life behind bars and ordered to serve at least 27 years before becoming eligible for parole.

He was further sentenced to six months behind bars for the assault charges, with all of the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

In a hearing before the Court of Appeal yesterday, Mr Horseman noted that the assault charges against Worrell were initially heard by Magistrates’ Court in 2020, but Ms Dillon-Burgess told the court that she had made up the accusations.

Mr Horseman said prosecutors subsequently submitted a nolle prosequi — a request for an indefinite adjournment — which halted proceedings.

He argued that in the circumstances, the magistrate should have acquitted Worrell of the charges at that time, but instead accepted the nolle.

Mr Horseman said: “We say this was a dead prosecution. There’s not further evidence that could make it any better for the prosecution.”

He argued that the Crown had a limited window to revive the charges, and that window had closed before the charges were relaid.

Mr Horseman added that if the murder trial was intended to be a “continuation” of the Magistrates’ Court case, then the evidence from the trial of Ms Dillon-Burgess recanting her accusations should have been before the jury.

He said: “If it was a continuation, it should have come before the court. If it wasn’t, then it was time-barred.”

He also argued that the accusatory statements made by Ms Dillon-Burgess were hearsay and the judge should have been given her evidence from the trial to consider before deciding if it should be admitted.

Mr Horseman also raised issues with Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe’s directions to the jury, stating that he should have given a direction on provocation, and that questions from the jury during deliberations showed they wanted clarity on the distinction between murder and manslaughter.

He said: “They came back twice with jury questions. It was clear that they were struggling with intent.”

Other issues raised including the admission of evidence from Mark Pettingill, who said he had a conversation with Worrell about hiding bodies, and delayed disclosure of phone evidence.

Mr Horseman said that Worrell’s phone was seized in May 2020, but he received disclosure of his phone data only after his trial had already begun in late 2023.

The hearing before the Court of Appeal continues today.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers