The police said yesterday that the gun used by Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys in the June 26 shooting incident was unlicensed for this year but no explanation was given by the force as to why a charge was not preferred in relation to this.
The police also disclosed that the firearm had been loaned and licensed to the magistrate by a former police commissioner who it did not name.
Following the incident, the magistrate was released on station bail and subsequently went on leave from the bench. There has been no indication on whether he will resume his duties at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court in light of the Director of Public Prosecution’s (DPP) recent recommendation that no charges be laid against him.
In a press release yesterday, the Guyana Police Force criticized Monday’s Stabroek News editorial on the Gilhuys issue and also referred to comments by DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack on the matter.
The force accused Stabroek News of attempting to “besmirch” their image and making spurious statements. The release attacked the editorial for doubting Commis-sioner Henry Greene’s explanation that in cases revolving around policemen they prefer another opinion. The editorial said that Greene’s explanation was “completely invalid and unconvincing considering that in less clear cut cases involving the police, charges have been preferred without reference to the DPP”.
According to the release this “dogmatic” statement made by the newspaper was another attempt to besmirch the image of the Guyana Police Force and this is coupled with a later statement in the editorial that “The Force avoids taking tricky decisions by sending the file to the DPP’s chambers”.
The release stated that this was another spurious statement since the office of the DPP was established to provide legal advice to the Police Commissioner and this is sought constantly.
“The Force wishes to challenge Stabroek News to provide one instance of less clear-cut cases involving police charges which have been preferred without reference to the DPP. If the Stabroek News cannot do so, it should withdraw these remarks”, the release added.
Turning its attention to the DPP, the release said that on July 4, the DPP requested that further investigations be done into what is now being called “deficient statements”, and every effort was made to clear them up.
According to the release it should be noted at this point the injured rank, Corporal Mark George was not in a condition to provide a statement but it was obtained on July 16 on the advice of his attending physician.
The file was returned to DPP on July 28.
Attempting to clarify some aspects of the investigation, the release stated that one doctor stated that he could not determine what calibre was used from the injuries or which were entry and which were exit wounds.
Further it stated that the operating surgeon recovered no warhead. “Clearly, no deficiency lay with the police statements. Perhaps the DPP meant that the statements did not provide sufficient evidence in her opinion to prefer a charge”, the release said.
The DPP had also said that Corporal George was the first person to exit the vehicle and was “not wearing police regulation uniform”.
Addressing the attire of the ranks that night, the release stated that the ranks were wearing regulation uniforms, some dark blue (anti-crime) and brown and black special constabulary. In addition to this Corporal George was wearing a helmet marked “police”.
The DPP had said that the ranks who were returning to Eve Leary after being assigned to a patrol on the lower East Bank, had given no proper explanation as to why they diverted from their original route especially since there was no evidence of the police having any reasonable suspicion of the commission of a criminal offence where the incident occurred.
The Force in response to this yesterday said that the administration does not ascribe any issues to the area where the ranks were found as there are no specific routes to travel when returning to base. The release pointed out that ranks may act on and/or observation and information as it relates to patrols.
“It is hoped that these comments put to rest concerns of any complicity where the Force’s administration is concerned”, it said.
Further the release said that the police received the file from the DPP on August 28 with advice for no charges and the subsequent statement by the rank requesting no criminal proceeding was not sent to the DPP by the Force.
On June 26, the rank and his colleagues were on patrol on Woolford Avenue when they noticed a vehicle with tinted windows parked on the roadway. The officers made checks and an argument ensued between them and the driver, who was later identified as Magistrate Gilhuys.
It was at this point that the magistrate reportedly opened fire, which was returned and George was hit.
The magistrate subsequently made a report at the Brickdam Police Station but he refused to hand over his weapon. However, he parked his vehicle, which had about six bullet holes, in the station compound. The magistrate then appeared at the station the following day accompanied by his attorney Nigel Hughes, and after spending several hours, was released on self-bail. He also lodged his weapon at the station.
Following the shooting, the magistrate had said that he was first shot at and that he returned fire.
Are these people for real? What an injustice.
Amazing that the COP has he gall to attack SN for its clearly stated opinion
which was based on facts.
Sharp word usage with ” this “dogmatic” statement made by the newspaper was another attempt to besmirch the image of the Guyana Police Force and this is coupled with a later statement in the editorial that “The Force avoids taking tricky decisions by sending the file to the DPP’s chambers”.
Dogmatic? they had better check their own records, that is, if they could find
them ! They always avoid making “tricky” decisions and that is my “dogmatic”
statement…..just check on the charge against Hinkson !!!
The least charge against the magistrate should be possession of an
unlicensed weapon irrespective of the fact that it was given to him by an
unnamed former police commissioner. Here we go again with the COP
withholding necessary information …..as usual !
This development tells you that this police service has no intensions of satisfying their role of protect and serve.When a Police Administration starts politicking you will have an upsurge of criminal behaviour coupled with vigilantism.
The population will loose all confidence in the force.
I think if the ag commish is confirmed we will see a change for the better.
There will be no change. What can the acting Commissioner not do today that he will be able to do if he is conformed. I don’t think he should be confirmed. We need someone who is competent. This government don’t seem to be able to find competent people though.
If it was the ordinary man or woman he / she would have been in the jail from day one. What besmirch is this top cop talking about. He should not be sitting at the “besmirch” table. Did the US govt’ besmirch him when they pulled his visa … he should tell the nation ???
As a magistrate he should have known better.
Well,well, this is Guyana, beautiful Guyana. I dare any civilised country in the world to copy our system, lets see if it is going to work.
wha nonsense dis we hearing. Man discharging unlicensed firearm and he na deh in lackup yet. He bove the law or what.
(cheering) BRAVO!!! Colt, we seein eye to eye on this one bannas… there is hope for us yet.
OBVIOUSLY we see here that there is a different interpretation of the laws of Guyana relative to which side of the law you stand on.
If you are John Q Public with no ‘Godfather’ in politics or uncle or cousin an officer in the GPF, then you get treated to the full measure of the law plus some. If you enjoy the protection of the prevailing government of the day or if you find yourself in the ranks of those who pledge to uphold the laws of Guyana, the laws of Guyana does not apply to you… ah mean after all, if you gun uphold de laws of Guyana then dem laws doan really apply to you does it?
Convoluted reasoning, advantage taking, and friends in high places? You bet!
Hush, you speak from both sides of your mouth. I seem to recall the other day you supporting the DPP’s decision not to prosecute Gilhuys
The big picture of the episode involving the magistrate and the constable is missed by many. Yes, the policeman was investigating what was to him a vehicle that was “heavily tinted”, and to his police instincts (credit to him) was suspicious. What is missing here is that the police force does not have the operational capacity, or did not employ this capacity to illuminate the suspected vehicle and properly identify themselves. The big picture,therefore is not what occured and its aftermath;not the statements by Stabroek news or the Commissioner of Police, but what should the public expect from the police going forward when officers employ their investigative taticts regarding tinted vehicles, or any other vehicle, in limeted lighting or unlighted areas. I agree with Vecock that the magistrate should have been charged with the possession of an unlicensed firearm. My question to the COP is: when will he charge the magistrate for the crime of “possesor of unlicensed firearm holder with intent ? I say no more
………………….Ulrick.!!!!……………….Gilhyus………………..hmmmmmmmmm!!……….he new what he was up against……………!!!………..he new of the fire arm state he had tuck away……………this police department made a call for all fire arm holders to renew their fire arm……………………..this year was half gone and he was still packing and tucking away an unlicesed fire arm……………now officer george in pain…………….because he poor……….and don’t have money………..let us follow him as he live through the rest of his life………………..
I think we should try and look at this thing from a different angle and we will see that the police tried to advantage the wrong man,I am not defending Gilhuys,these policemen have been shooting first and asking questions after,but in this case it was a man who knew the game only too well,he could teach them a thing or two,it was just a case of the boot on the other foot anyhow you look at it.
Stabroek should have defended itself on this one why wait on some bloggers who sometimes go off course
The facts speak for themselves coolieman, SN is demonstrating class by not getting into a “dem seh she seh” affair.
Coolieman….my earlier response to you got axed and I suspect two reasons:
1. that I started it with your name (an apparent NO NO )
2. that it was direct to you.
Well ah gun try again but dis time mek it longer fuh de Moderator !
You write about “some bloggers who sometimes go off course”, but like you
forget yourself ! man meh tell yuh, lot of times you get me lost with your
“off course ” comments, so now ah really surprise dat you would accuse
others of the same ting dat you doing !
Check it out next time , man.
Right now SN don”t have to defend itself cause it publishes the facts…
true true facts !