BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – TWO very serious incidents on Nevis involving two officers of the Royal St. Christopher and Nevis Police Force and two male civilians have initiated many debates on the airwaves and, most recently, drew the attention of a recently formed group on that island called ‘Save St. Kitts and Nevis’.
The first incident occurred on Saturday, September 19, 2015 when 55-year-old Steadroy ‘Seamoss’ Sutton, who is employed as a security guard at the Turtle Times Restaurant on Pinney’s Beach, was shot twice while executing his duties. He had sustained wounds to his groin and lower back.
That matter was investigated by the Office of Professional Standards and the officer, Constable Randolph Diamond, was on disciplinary charges, suspended from the Force and would be in receipt of half his salary on a monthly basis.
Diamond’s file was sent to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and he was subsequently arrested and charged with wounding with intent.
The second incident occurred on Saturday, October 17, 2015 at Enrique Bar, which is situated in Cedar Trees, Charlestown, Nevis, a short distance from the Charlestown Police Station.
This incident resulted in the shooting-death of 17-year-old Philo Wallace of Hamilton Village and the wounding of an off-duty police officer who allegedly shot him.
Since then, the Police Force had held a press conference during which members of the High Command and Commander of the Nevis Division indicated that the matter was under investigation and the officer was on sick leave.
The police’s statement had caused a public outcry for justice, especially on Nevis, with comments such as “the police investigate their own”, and “there should be an independent investigation”.
Late last month, it was bandied that the officer had returned to work and was on active duty, but on Tuesday (Dec. 1), Commissioner (Ag) Stafford Liburd had set the record straight.
“The Constable who is involved in the shooting-death of Philo Wallace is not on active duty. He is presently on administrative leave, but he is very much restricted while on that leave. The restriction on that leave does not permit him to be around in certain areas of the Police Force.”
Liburd also told this publication that the Office of the DPP had given the Police Force a directive to move towards the Coroner’s Inquest, and “once it is held and whatever the outcome, we are obliged by law to follow. We are biding, waiting for the Coroner’s Inquest to be held, but I cannot say how soon. However, we will try to advance it as quickly as we can”.
When contacted, the Acting DPP, Arudranuath Gossai, told SKNVibes that he had sent a letter on Wednesday (Nov. 4) to the Magistrate on Nevis advising her to hold a Coroner’s Inquest into the matter.
Speaking with SKNVibes, Hugh Oswald Wallace, father of the deceased, stated that he does not believe that the police should investigate their own.
“The thing about it is once police are going to judge police you could expect the worst. I have an issue with the police trying the police. That’s a big, big problem. It is similar to trying the devil in hell and there will be no justice for my son. He had a very bright future as a cricketer. Who knows how great he might have been? None of us, because we are not clairvoyant! But all it took was just one bullet from an off-duty police officer to end his dreams.”
The senior Wallace is also adamant that the Coroner’s Inquest would not result in justice for his son.
“The Inquest will be based on evidence that the police investigators will present to the Coroner and that could be biased. I say bias because I do not trust the police. They may want to justify the officer’s action by only presenting statements made by so-called witnesses who are sympathetic towards the officer.”
In response to his belief, this writer pointed out that Philo’s friends and other individuals who claimed to have witnessed what took place on that fateful morning might have also given statements to the investigators, and that would contradict what he believes.
Wallace is of the strong view that due to the current relationship that exists between the police and residents on Nevis, it is unlikely that some witnesses would speak to the investigators, because “they too are officers and most people do not trust the police”.
Because of this perceived mistrust and lack of confidence in the police, it was suggested that an independent investigation should have been conducted into the matter.
Many individuals, groups and non-governmental organisations as well as this writer are in agreement for an independent investigation.
Indeed, independent investigations are costly ventures, but what price would one put to the life of a human being?
Over the past months, members of the Bramshill Policing Advisers have been involved in a wide range of activities designed to enhance the capabilities of the local Police Force.
Among those capabilities were training courses in crime detection, solving crimes and conducting investigations. Therefore, since there is mistrust and lack of confidence in the police and foreign experts were training our officers in conducting investigations, why after classroom lectures the authorities did not solicit the assistance of those tutors to conduct the investigation into Philo Wallace’s shooting-death? Would it have not been the practical aspect of the training course?
Having read the December 31, 2002 Revised Edition of the Coroners Act, this writer has decided to not only provide some details of how it is conducted to the senior Wallace and his family members, but also to members of the public who are not privy to the Act.
What are Inquests and why are they held?
Inquests can be defined as formal court proceedings with a five-member jury held to publicly review the circumstances of a death. Further, the jury hears evidence from witnesses under subpoena in order to determine the facts of the death.
However, according to the Act, the Court is not an open one.
The Act states: “The room or building in which a Coroner’s Court is held shall not be deemed an open Court, and it shall be lawful for such Coroner, in his or her discretion, to order that no person shall have access to, or be or remain in, such room or building, the jury excepted, without the consent or permission of such Coroner, if it appears to him or her that the ends of the inquiry will be best answered by so doing.”
The Act also states that no counsel or solicitor is entitled to appear in any proceeding before a Coroner’s Court, but the Coroner may allow him or her to appear on application if he or she sees it fit.
Proceedings at inquest: Evidence and Inquisition
(1) The Coroner shall, at the first sitting of the inquest examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he or she thinks it expedient to examine.
(2) The evidence of every witness shall be taken down in writing in the form of a deposition, which shall be read over to the witness and signed by the Coroner and the witness, or, in case of the incapacity or refusal of the latter to sign the same, then by the Coroner and some other person in whose presence the deposition was taken; and such deposition shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings in the cases in which and subject to the conditions under which in similar proceedings in England the like deposition taken by or before a Coroner in England would be admissible in evidence. This subsection shall not derogate from the admissibility in evidence of any such deposition independently of this Act.
At the conclusion of each day’s hearing, the Coroner will certify the evidence in a special form provided for that purpose.
The following sections also refer to the above mentioned Chapter of the Act:
(4) After hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict, and certify it by an inquisition in writing, setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his or her death, and if he or she came by his or her death by murder or manslaughter, the persons, if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories before the fact to such murder.
(5) If the jury at an inquest fail to agree on a unanimous verdict, the Coroner may accept the verdict of four of them and such majority shall, in that case, certify the verdict in accordance with the requirements of subsection (4).
(6) The inquisition shall be under the hands of the jurors who concur in the verdict, and of the Coroner.
(7) In any other case of disagreement the Coroner may discharge the jury and issue a warrant for summoning another jury, and thereupon the inquest shall proceed in all respects as if the proceedings which terminated in the disagreement had not taken place, except that it shall not be obligatory on the Coroner to view the body.
(8) A Coroner holding an inquest in any place may adjourn the inquest to another day, whether the same be Sunday or any other day, and order the adjourned inquest to be held in the same or any other place.
Transmission of finding
The Coroner after the termination of an inquest on any death shall send to the Registrar of Births and Deaths of the district whose duty it is by law to register the death the finding of the jury in writing.
Duty of persons to attend inquest
It shall be the duty of all persons who are able to give material evidence concerning any matter to be inquired into at an inquest to attend the inquest at the time and place appointed and to give such evidence.
Coroner may summon witnesses
The Coroner may at any time summon such witnesses, as he or she deems necessary, touching the matter of the inquest.
Penalty in the case of witnesses
(1) Any person who
(a) being summoned to attend as a witness on any inquest, shall refuse or neglect to attend; or
(b) being present in Court, shall refuse to be sworn, or to give evidence; or
(c) having given evidence, shall refuse to sign his or her deposition when required to do so;
shall be liable to be committed for contempt, or to pay a fine, to be imposed by the Coroner, not exceeding fifty dollars.
(2) An appeal against any committal or order under subsection (1) of this section shall lie to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, Cap 3.06.
Refusal to enter into recognizance
Any person who shall refuse to enter into any recognizance required to be entered into under this Act, shall be liable to be committed for contempt, or to pay a fine, to be imposed by the Coroner, not exceeding fifty dollars, or to be imprisoned until the return day of such recognizance unless the same is sooner entered into, or, in the discretion of the Coroner, to fine and imprisonment.
Director of Public Prosecutions
The Act states that the Director of Public Prosecutions has the authority to require any Coroner to hold an inquest into the cause of and the circumstances connected with the death of any person.
It also states that where the proceedings at any inquest have been closed by the Coroner and it appears to the DPP that further investigation is necessary, he or she may require the Coroner to re-open the inquest and make further investigation.
Following the DPP’s intervention, “the Coroner shall have all power to, and shall reopen the inquest and make further investigation, and thereafter proceed in the same manner as if the proceedings at such inquest had not been closed by the Coroner”.
This action, the Act explains, must only be done: “Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any inquest at which any verdict or finding of murder, manslaughter or infanticide has been returned against any person therein named”.
