Magistrate Hazel Octive-Hamilton yesterday discharged James Emmanuel Hutson, a man shot by police while in possession of a screwdriver, saying that lawmen failed to substantiate their claim that it was an offensive weapon.
A wounded Hutson, called ‘Buffo,’ was, however, remanded to prison on charges that he escaped police custody and that he assaulted a police constable.
Hutson, who walked with the aid of crutches, was shot in his right foot and the wound was exposed and severely swollen when he appeared in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court yesterday. Blood oozed and dripped steadily from the visible wound and as a result, the magistrate allowed him to remain seated in the prisoners’ dock throughout the proceedings.
Hutson was not required to enter a plea to the indictable charge of escaping lawful custody, which was based on the allegation that he escaped from a policeman. The particulars of the charge stated that on August 20, at Georgetown, being in lawful custody of police constable 21390 on a criminal charge of robbery-under-arms, Hutson escaped.
He, however, denied a separate charge that on August 14, he assaulted police constable 20885, who was acting in the execution of his duties with intent to resist lawful arrest.
Although Hutson pleaded guilty to being in possession of an offensive weapon, the police failed to substantiate the offence. The court was told that on August 14, Grove, East Bank Demerara, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he had a sharp instrument in his possession.
Prosecutor Burgett Grant said that the police, acting on certain information, confronted Hutson at Third Street, Grove and he attempted to disarm one of the officers of his service revolver. As a result, Grant added, the lawmen apprehended him and a search subsequently uncovered the screwdriver in his pants’ waist.
But Hutson, 40, of 255 Grove Squatting Area, told the court that he did electrical work and was at the time carrying the screwdriver to perform some electrical works for his aunt. He said that while going to his aunt’s house, he was stopped by three policemen attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and they ordered him to lie on the ground, after which they shot him in the right foot.
The court noted Hutson’s explanation for having the screwdriver in his possession and cautioned the prosecution that the important ingredients needed to establish that charge against him were “unlawful possession” and “without reasonable excuse.” The magistrate further noted that based on the explanation provided to the court by Hutson, however, those ingredients were lacking in the charge.
It was at this point that the magistrate questioned the prosecution about the investigation conducted into the charge, for which there was no proper response.
As a result, Magistrate Octive-Hamilton requested the case file and after perusing it, she declared that “absolutely no investigation was done by the police to ascertain why the accused was carrying the screwdriver.”
The magistrate said that no one questioned Hutson and she questioned if the charge levelled against him was even the right one. She said that based on the statements given by the police in the file, they said that the reason they shot him was because they saw him advancing to remove something from his pants’ waist and after they searched him, the screwdriver was found.
The court contended that while it did not know if Hutson’s story was true, the fact that the police failed in their duty to properly investigate the matter will allow for “all doubts to go to the benefit of the defendant.”
As a result, the magistrate reprimanded and discharged Hutson of the charge.
Hutson, in response, said that it was after being shot and taken to the Diamond Diagnostic Centre by the police that the lawmen were given the screwdriver by the doctor. He explained that as the doctor was attending to his wound, the screwdriver was protruding from his pocket and it was handed over to the police, who then slapped him with the offensive weapon charge.
Meanwhile, Hutson was denied bail on the two other two charges, after objections by the prosecution, which noted that while in custody, other allegations have been brought against him. It was also noted that Hutson has pending matters before the court.
At the time of the alleged escape from custody, Hutson was a patient under police guard at the Georgetown Public Hospital. When asked if he escaped custody, Hutson firmly said no. Asked by the magistrate, however, if he was granted permission by the police to leave the hospital, where he was chained to the bed, the accused said no. “I just walk out the hospital, but I went to the station me self the next day,” he said.
The magistrate then cautioned him that this amounted to escaping lawful custody as he was given no permission to leave.
His matters will be called again on October 2 in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court One for reports and fixtures.
