DPP recommends charges against Constable
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE much-talked about controversial shooting-death of 17-year-old Nevisian Philo Wallace by a Constable of the Royal St. Christopher and Nevis Police Force has once again surfaced, and the police have declared that the “matter is ongoing”.
This pronouncement was made last Thursday (Aug. 24) by Commissioner of Police Ian Queeley at a press conference held at the Police Training Complex in Basseterre, St. Kitts.
The pronouncement was in response to a reporter seeking an update on the status of the matter after it was reported that since April this year the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Valston Graham, had advised the Police High Command that the Constable should be charged with criminal offences.
“The Director of Public Prosecutions and the police have always been working together as a team. Yes, the Director of Public Prosecutions, after reviewing a file, has recommended charges. The Police High Command has met with the Director of Public Prosecutions and that matter is ongoing,” Queeley said.
The DPP’s recommendation came in stark contrast to the findings at the Coroner’s Inquest in March last year, when a five-member jury (except one) had determined that Wallace’s shooting-death was a “justifiable homicide”.
At approximately 3:45 a.m. on Saturday, October 17, 2015, an altercation took place at Enrique Bar in Charlestown, Nevis which resulted in Wallace of Hamilton Village being shot in the chest and the wounding of a police officer.
Wallace was rushed to the Alexandra Hospital where he died about half an hour after.
It was learnt that the officer, who had suffered an injury to his head, was identified as the individual who shot Wallace to the chest at close range and was off-duty at the time of the incident.
A number of questions were asked by media operatives at a press conference headed by then Acting Commissioner Stafford Liburd, including who the officer was and where was he at that time, to which it was stated that the accused officer was a Constable and that he was on sick leave.
A media operative then asked: “Will the investigation be conducted using the internal mechanism of the Force or will a special prosecutor/investigator be brought in?”
In response, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) with Responsibility for Crime, Ian Queeley said, “The investigations are well underway and this particular point in time there is no external mechanism. The Violent Crimes Unit of the St. Kitts-Nevis Police Force has been activated along with the Office of Professional Standards. So we have concurrent investigations happening at this time.”
And responding to if the police had heard or seen anything that suggested deadly force was used in the shooting of the teen, the then ACP Vaughan Henderson, who was responsible for Operations, said: “At this point in our investigation the matter is still sub judice. The matter is still very early and still under investigation. And to be fair to both sides, we are not in a position to say whether or not the shoot with deadly force that was used is justified. As the investigation goes on, we are hoping that we will give further information and updates to the general public.”
There were two questions which answers had caused many people to comment that the police were “tight-lipped” on the matter.
One was: “Is there any evidence that the guy who received injury to his head was struck by the guy who got killed?” And the other was: “Did that officer had the rank to carry a weapon while off-duty?” or similar words.
Both questions were answered by Queeley.
“Firstly, the ranks and issuance of firearms...there are regulations. I indicated earlier certain persons are allowed to carry firearms. For the purposes of this, I cannot say what unit or persons would be entitled to carry firearms. That would be compromising to say.
“In relation to the other question, that matter is too early to give any feedback to. Suffice to say, that is only an allegation. And if it’s an allegation, investigations that we are ongoing we are hoping to extract from all potential witnesses what they would have seen or heard so as to determine whether or not that was true.”
The incident had received widespread attention and, because of the mistrust and lack of confidence in the police at that time, many individuals, groups and non-governmental organisations had suggested that an independent investigation should have been conducted into the matter.
Some individuals had also expressed that the police should not be leading the Inquest because they would select people from which the jury was to be chosen.
It is however lawful for the police to investigate their own. And as was explained to SKNVibes, in keeping with the Coroners Act (which, by the way, is archaic), it is not the police who make the decision for the holding of an inquest but the Office of the DPP; which therefore means that, regardless of the public’s view, the police ought not to be blamed for the decision-making process into the matter.
During investigations into the matter, the Constable was assigned desk duties and had returned to active duty following the result of the Inquest. However, what is highly questionable is that he was and is still on active duty even though the DPP had recommended since March this year that charges be laid against him.
