Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com

SKNBuzz Radio - Strictly Local Music Toon Center
My Account | Contact Us  

Our Partner For Official online store of the Phoenix Suns Jerseys

 Home  >  Headlines  >  OPINION
Posted: Friday 18 December, 2015 at 7:07 AM

Police and The Community (Part III)

James Milnes Gaskell

    To date the number of homicides in the Federation for 2015 is 30.  The violent death of Albert Myers was treated as a landmark case but no less important, because of the alleged involvement of an off-duty Police Officer was that of 17 years old Philo Wallace at Enriques Bar.  On that same day ACP Queeley stated that according to information he received, an altercation took place between a police officer and a group of young males during which the officer was injured. 

     

    He said that the off-duty Police Officer ‘discharged his firearm in his defence and shot a male juvenile’.  

    At a Press Conference on October 19th Commissioner of Police (Ag) Stafford Liburd (as reported) repeated those brief details without reference to ‘in his defence’.  

    ACP Queeley responded to the question, ‘Was the deceased the person who struck the officer on his head with an object during the altercation?’ by saying that it was too early in the investigation for feedback to be given on that particular issue, but that the Police Force is ‘committed to providing you with timely updates on this matter as information becomes available’. An appeal was made. ‘The RSCNPF appeals to the public for patience as we continue to gather evidence in order to investigate this matter fully. This investigation will be conducted thoroughly and transparently in order to establish the truth. The Violent Crimes Unit is investigating this incident and appeals to anyone who witnessed this event to come forward…’

    Very little further information has been produced. Instead it has been announced that the file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who has asked for a Coroner’s 
    Enquiry. Let us consider the significance of this.

    If the file had revealed enough evidence upon which to base a prosecution for murder or manslaughter then that is surely the course the DPP would have adopted. We have to assume insufficient evidence. But why? The Police know, even if they have not named him, the officer who fired the fatal shot. There were by all accounts a number of witnesses to the event. What could be simpler? ‘I saw X fire the shot. It hit Y’.

    This is a case in which the Police know or should know the identity and address of every person present at Enriques that night and they should have taken a statement from every one. Some of those interviewed would or could have stated that they saw X shoot Y, or, hearing a shot, they saw X holding a gun and Y fall over, or some similar variation. We have to assume that the investigation was inadequate and that the DPP has called for a Coroner’s Enquiry hoping that additional evidence will emerge, and that the Coroner’s Court will come to a conclusion that will guide him in his actions.

    A Coroner’s Court is unlike any other. The duty of the Coroner is to enquire into the cause and circumstances of an unnatural death. If the circumstances provide a reasonable suspicion that the death came about by murder or manslaughter a jury has to be summoned. Now here is the difficulty in a case where it is alleged that a Police Officer caused the fatality. The Act instructs the Coroner to issue a warrant directed to the senior officer of Police and other Police Officers of the district requiring them to summon ‘five good and lawful persons’ as jurors. Since this allows the Police to summon persons of their choosing that would be highly unsatisfactory, especially in a case of alleged homicide by a policeman. Trust in our Police is not high. Public knowledge that the Police appointed the jury would further undermine it. The Act does not direct the Police how to find jurors, but what should happen, in order to avoid any appearance of fixing, is for the High Court Bailiff to certify that those appointed were the next five on the High Court’s potential juror list. However, there is no provision for this in the Act.

    A Coroner’s Court is not an Open Court. This means that anyone at the Coroner’s discretion may be allowed or not allowed in the Court. No counsel or solicitor is entitled as of right to appear for a party, but the Coroner may permit their presence. One would think it probable that Counsel would be allowed for the family of the deceased, and for anyone who might be regarded as a possible perpetrator.

    The Coroner may summon witnesses. The DPP/Police file will be the basis for this. But, the Act states that it shall be the duty of anyone who is able to give material evidence to attend the inquest and give evidence. This means that the Police file may not be the only source of witnesses and evidence.

    Evidence is given on oath and written down in the form of a deposition. Should the Coroner’s inquisition charge anyone with murder or manslaughter, a warrant will be issued for that person’s apprehension and committal to prison. The Act is not clear, but it seems that in such a case the Coroner’s Court finding is treated as a Preliminary Enquiry finding and the person will next be brought before the High Court.

    The DPP can bring charges against someone, before, during or after the verdict of the Coroner’s Court. 

    If a murder or manslaughter pronouncement is made, the Community will in due course be able to follow the case at the open High Court. If another verdict is made, such as for example, justifiable homicide, accident, death by misadventure, the Coroner’s file and depositions are returned to the DPP, and we may never hear what went on at that Coroner’s Court. 

    I conclude that:-  Our Coroners Act does not permit an Enquiry to be set up that will enjoy the confidence of the public that a just , fair and accurate verdict may be reached. It is archaic. It went on to our statute book in 1949/50. At that time the foundation of our statutes came from England, and their then current law was an Act of 1887. The structure of our Act is therefore more than 125 years old, settled for another country and framed for conditions remotely unlikely to have included a homicide in which a policeman was the alleged perpetrator.

    It is said on the street that other police were at Enriques when the shooting took place. Had each one made a full and accurate statement, as would be his/her duty, then surely the DPP would have been in a position either to lay charges or to tell the public for whatever reason there was, that no charges should be made. One has to sympathise with the DPP in his call for a Coroners Enquiry. A shooting death in front of many witnesses, and a police file insufficient for him to press charges. But it is not a good decision. The public believes that the Coroners Court will not be told the whole truth or have the capacity in the circumstances to find it out. The public expects a whitewash. When they get it what happens to the level of trust in our police, and the willingness of anyone to come forward as a witness to other crimes?

    Our Police Force is too small to be permitted to investigate one of its own members for a serious crime. There must be an independent investigation. The answer is to extend the contract with the Bramshill policemen and have them carry it out, and report direct to the DPP. I doubt if it would take them more than a couple of weeks.

    Now here is another matter also concerning those who, on our behalf have responsibility for combating crime. The Prime Minister announced the creation of The Criminal Justice Strategic Board (CJSB) on November 11th. Appointees to the CJSB were made from the agencies that are or might be involved in criminal matters, and include, the DPP, the Police, Customs, Fire Service, FIU and the Prison. The CJSB will bring the agencies together so that they can share information and fight crime more effectively thereby. A necessary and excellent plan. However, one of the members appointed by the NIA was under investigation in respect of serious money laundering matters. The DPP sought a High Court Order for production of this gentleman’s Bank accounts. Is the investigation still current? Is the DPP expected to sit at the same table as someone he is or has recently been investigating, and discuss highly confidential matters with him? Anyway what has happened to this matter? It can’t have stopped when the last DPP left, can it? All very mysterious and unsatisfactory.
     

    Disclaimer

     

    This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not  correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers. 

     

     

     

     

     

Copyright © 2024 SKNVibes, Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy   Terms of Service