Day 2 of Manslaughter Trial:  Defence Counsel Clashes With Key Witness Over Badly Placed Breathing Tube, Officer’s Notebook, and Surgeon’s Identity Shield

By Alric Lindsay

Dynamic cross-examination pushed the manslaughter trial of Dr. Paul Anthony Taiganides into tense territory today, September 8, 2026, as defence counsel directly challenged the credibility, record-keeping, and very presence of the prosecution’s key police witness inside the hospital trauma room.

During an intense grilling by defence attorney Ben Tonner KC, Police Constable Hines stood his ground under fire, defending his decision to photograph a dying Travis Ebanks on his personal cell phone and reiterating his explosive claim that the surgeon actively hid his identity from police after the patient died.

Dr. Taiganides faces charges of manslaughter by unlawful omission through culpable negligence following the death of Mr. Ebanks. The prosecution, led by Richard Matthews KC and supported by Martin Mulgrew of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, alleges the surgeon mistakenly forced a breathing tube into the victim’s esophagus (food pipe) instead of his trachea (windpipe) and failed to recognize the error.

“I am sticking to my statement”

The cross-examination before lunch took a sharp turn when Tonner KC targeted PC Hines’ explosive testimony that Dr. Taiganides hid his identity following the failed resuscitation. “You told us you approached him and he turned his name tag around?” Tonner asked.” Yes,” Hines countered firmly.

Tonner then pushed forward with closed-circuit television footage, which was played in court for the jury. The CCTV recordings from the hospital hallway captured Dr. Taiganides exiting the trauma room alongside another physician.  Tonner directly challenged the officer’s version of events, asserting that hospital CCTV footage actually showed the surgeon displaying his name tag to Hines’ colleague.

“I am sticking to my statement,” PC Hines shot back, refusing to back down from his assertion that the surgeon actively obscured his credentials when asked for his name at the trauma room entry.

Defence questions trauma room presence

The defence repeatedly questioned why PC Hines were stationed directly inside a sterile medical trauma room during an active resuscitation and without any gloves or other medical precautions.

PC Hines justified his presence by citing the serious nature of the incident. PC Hines shared that, based on the nature of the shooting and the fact that he didn’t know who the suspect was, he was concerned about further harm that could come to the victim. PC Hines added that standard police operating procedures required police to guard the victim directly rather than standing watch outside the closed doors.

When Tonner KC suggested that police had “no business” being inside the trauma room and that other witnesses would testify to that effect, Hines replied coldly, “They could have asked us to leave.”

Officer’s notebook and cellphone photos under fire

The defence further attempted to undermine the reliability of the officer’s testimony by exposing gaps in his official documentation. 

PC Hines admitted under cross-examination that he did not record his real-time observations in his official police notebook. Instead, he revealed he compiled his formal notes a full day after the incident.

Tonner KC also questioned why the officer chose to take investigative photographs of a bare-chested, heavily bleeding Mr. Ebanks using a personal mobile device. PC Hines insisted the photos were a standard “part of an investigation.” However, Tonner pressed him on why his photographic record was so selective: “Why didn’t you continue to take photos?” Tonner asked. “I didn’t take photos the entire time I was there,” PC Hines responded, clarifying that he did not take pictures of the alleged, inactive medical monitors or the alleged, unplugged machinery.

Medical sequence contested

The defence concluded its cross-examination by attempting to scramble the chronological order of events presented by the prosecution, suggesting that the medical procedures did not happen in the sequence PC Hines claimed.

PC Hines also made claims about not seeing any readings on the medical equipment to support his statement that the equipment was not working properly. He doubled down by saying that he had been in the trauma room previously for stabbings and other incidents and, as a result, had experience reading monitors.

When Tonner KC asked PC Hines generally about any medical training had to read hospital monitors, PC Hines admitted he lacked formal medical training. However, PC Hines held firm to his visual observations.

While PC Hines conceded he could not recall if Mr. Ebanks lost consciousness before Dr. Taiganides removed his oxygen mask, he vividly re-emphasized the final, critical, alleged, error.

PC Hines reiterated that when CPR commenced, blood was visibly filling the breathing tube. When Tonner challenged this by stating that Dr. Teeling later logged a note asserting the tube was in the right place, PC Hines flatly disputed the medical record, stating: “He said [the] tube wasn’t in [the] right place.”

The prosecution declined to re-examine PC Hines, and Justice Richards offered no further questions to the witness. The jury was dismissed for a lunch break at 1:00 pm.

The trial continues.