BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE discontinuation of charges laid against Grenadian Kathron ‘Cuchi’ Fortune and his deportation to St. Maarten have caused raised eyebrows in St. Kitts and Nevis, but the police have offered a plausible explanation for those decisions.
A release from the Public Relations Office of the Royal St. Christopher and Nevis Police Force (RSCNPF) indicated that the decisions were made by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Fortune, a Grenadian by birth with Dutch nationality, was serving a 21-year sentence at the Point Blanche Prison in St. Maarten for the cold-blooded murder of 22-year-old Ervin Margarita on May 11, 2006 in Rice Hill Estate, but had escaped on Monday, February 15, 2016 during a scheduled visit to Dr. Paul de Windt’s office on Welgelegen Road in Cay Hill.
Reports from the neighbouring Dutch island had stated that while at the doctor’s office under two escorts, Fortune managed to get hold of a firearm, took off on foot and was picked up by an unmarked vehicle.
Reports also stated that since his escape, he was fingered in five other murders on St. Maarten.
The fugitive was however captured on Saturday (Jul. 29) by officers from District ‘B’ who had responded to the sighting of an unusual activity along the coastline in Cranstoun Bay, an area in the vicinity of Newton Ground.
Police said initial investigations determined that he had illegally entered the Federation and in his possession were a high-powered rifle (Bushmaster) with telescopic stock, a bulletproof vest, a backpack containing a quantity of cured marijuana, hashish [a marijuana derivative] and a sum of US currency.
He was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition. He was also charged with illegal entry into the Federation, possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to supply.
Fortune was remanded at Her Majesty’s Prison and Commissioner of Police Ian Queeley had indicated that additional charges were to be laid against him.
However, on Friday (Aug. 4), he had appeared before the District ‘B’ Magistrate’s Court to answer the charges laid against him. But, according to the police release, “The DPP having assessed the matter with a view to determine the best course to adopt, determined that our best interest would be served by discontinuing the charges.
“Consequently, he exercised the powers so vested in him under section 65 (2) (c) of the Constitution to discontinue the charges. This paved the way for Mr. Fortune's immediate expulsion from the Federation. A deportation order was then sorted and he was deported to St. Maarten later that day escorted by Law Enforcement officials of St. Maarten.”
The release noted that Commissioner Queeley stated that St. Kitts and Nevis would not be a haven for fugitives, and that the RSCNPF would continue to collaborate with its regional and international partners to ensure that justice is not denied in any jurisdiction.
The Commissioner also took the opportunity to thank all those who were instrumental in the entire process.
Yesterday (Aug. 5), after reading on this website that Fortune was deported to St. Maarten and learning later of the dropped charges, a number of concerned citizens contacted SKNVibes seeking answers to those decisions.
Despite the explanation provided by the police, they all were of the view that the fugitive should have been tried on all charges, sentenced and then deported on completion of the time served.
“The decision that the DPP made will now be a precedence in the courts of St. Kitts and Nevis. When someone is deemed wanted in the country of his birth, or any other country, and he or she is residing in the USA and had committed a crime there and was charged, the American justice system is of such that that person would be tried, sentenced and then deported.
“Apart from that fact, I am certain that most of us in the Federation and the wider Caribbean are aware of the many persons who had committed crimes in the US and after serving their sentence were deported to their land of birth. I totally disagree with what the DPP did even though they say it is his constitutional right,” said one of the callers to this media house.
In an effort to ascertain what the release said about the powers vested in the DPP, this media house had decided to research the Federation’s Constitution.
Under the heading Control of public prosecutions at Section 65, subsection (2), the Constitution states: “The Director of Public Prosecutions shall have power in any case in which he considers it desirable so to do –
a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law (other than in a court-martial) in respect of any offence under a law alleged to have been committed by that person;
b) to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that have been instituted or undertaken by any other person or authority; and
c) to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by himself or any other person or authority.
