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.
Well! well! well! I fired my licensed weapon in the air because of an imminent threat on my life and business and you know what my license was revoked. You know what was their rationale behind this. “You should have waited for them to make their first move, then fire your weapon” My answer to them was simple “had i let them make their first move and i was shot, you would have said we are issuing licences to civilians and they are not using it to protect themselves”
At my trial the magistrate asked the prosecutor ” when is it right to fire a licensed weapon as the police are not there to say the level of threat to the individual” he could not answer. Guess the level of threat to Mr. Gilhuis was extremely high.
As i said previously GPF law “Do as i say not as i shoot”
Is that so Ricardo???
See? Same thing I did deh sehing. One is in either of two positions with regards the laws of Guyana; either above it or beneath it.
Well this is simply an indication of the altered motto of the GPL. It is no longer To Protect and Serve but Pretend to Serve. People are denied bail in Guyana for possession of spent shells. They are charged by the Pretend to Serve Police. Here is an individual with an unlicensed weapon. I was unaware that the COP has to seek the DPP’s permission to institute a charge for an unlicensed weapon. Maybe the COP as a qualified attorney is attempting to establish a precedent for when he practices or he is just Pretending to Serve.
Hey SN very good reporting and don’t let GPF cop lead u into gaff.You keep stating the facts just how u get it,I like that.Way to go SN.you c how u have Greene shaking.I look to c how this develops.SN I look for ur take in the Roger Khan breaking news.
Yo fellows let me see one of u tell me how to pronounce your magistrate’s name GILHUYS.I keep hearing something like GILHOUSE,GILHUGHES,GILHUSS etc.Thanks.I may win a $20 bucks mates so help me on this cool.
What is good for the goose should be good for the gander,these people are crazy trying to defend this mans actions.
An early report had stated that Gilhuys did not return his gun
when he left the Guyana Police Force to sit on the bench, now
i’m hearing that he did not renew his gun for 2008, is this
the same gun ????????, if so why ????????, he is not a
cop.
Mr Gilhuys refused to lodge his gun at Brickdam when the cops
told him to do so, can’t be charged for disobeying the police
orders Mr GREEEEEENE ???????????????, You don’ t need
Ms Ali-Hack advice on this one.
……………………….thank you west.bank………………….there is more in the mata than the dam pessle……………ag greeeeeeeeeeen!!……………… very well know what went on that night when gilhyus check in at brickdam …………….rule of tumb …………when somethings of this nature occour……..who do you contact?……….why did they ask him to turn in all the wepons he had in a earlier report ……………………this story got teeth…………..!! and we the people watching………………all the government operatives trying to save gilhyus…………………….
I don’t know what will be the fate of the acting Commissioner of Police now that he has exposed and embarrassed the DPP. This confirmation is particularly important and clearly Mr. Gilhuys ought not to return to the bench. Possession of an unlicensed firearm is a straightforward charge for the police to institute. It’s either he had a licence and the police records would indicate that or he didn’t. This whole sordid affair has tarnished the already bad image of the justice system. It’s rather fishy that the police who collect witness statements in criminal matters had no sight of the victim’s statement requesting no further police action. Very sad case indeed.
SN very good, no he sey, she sey u r going to get into, u have always checked ur facts b4 reporting, they r looking 4 a scape goat, they barking up the wrong tree, keep up the good works. Now, wasn’t it reported that the cop was shot from the back,? that means he was either walking/running away, fancy this, the attending physician cannot state the ingress and egress of the bullet, nonsense, someone is covering up, as usual. although as stated, the police men were not supposed to be in that area, they were there anyhow, so, what this have to do with the shooting,? some policemen,(I was told,) goes around that area to peek at nights, whether this was so or not, the magistrate stated, he was there to relieve himself, the policemen were not supposed to be there, and the magistrate was not supposed to be there either to urinate, the time he took to drive there to urinate, I’m sure he passed many shops,(and being a magistrate,) no one would have refused him to use their bathroom, so get real, not hearing of the other person who was in the car with him.
We want to hear the reason why this magistrate would not be charged for an unlicensed weapon, I could not have used an unlicensed weapon and not be charged, locked up, without bail and taken to this same magistrate, and not served time, so the laws changes for the higher-ups and the every day poor man feels the pinch.
I remembered reading that this magistrate was sitting in his car, at the time he was approched by these cops, if the magistrate sole purpose was to drive there to urinate, why was he still sitting in his car, would’nt he have urinated and drove away.?
This maigstrate was a cop also, he studied and gained his position thereafter, simple day to day people, down to earth people, can think better.
The DPP needs to look into this matter further, come on DPP, what about the unlicensed weapon.?
Hey bro I forgot to mention that my Attorney in requesting the return of my firearm the Magistrate H.W. Maxwell Edwards said ” I cannot grant same as i was in a similar position as your client and the Police are never there to see the threat levelled at you to decide you had no right to discharge your weapon”
There are a quite a few injustices meted out to me in our system but this one i had to pen as you rightly said “if you have a godfather, uncle or someone in the GPF you safe well i don’t have one my brother so i had to feel John Q Public pain. You know what though I still chasing bandits through the streets of the city and caught a few too that has been sent to prison.
I aint hate the Police you know is the system. as there are still some good members in the force that are doing their jobs “Protect and Serve”