No charge recommendation in Gilhuys case based on deficient police statements – DPP

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack said yesterday that her decision to recommend that no charges be laid against Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys in the shooting of a policeman two months ago was based on the deficient statements sent to her.

She also revealed that the Cpl Mark George, the policeman involved, had written requesting that no criminal proceedings be taken in the matter, since it was not in his best interest.

In a press release issued yesterday, Ali-Hack also emphasized that on the night of the incident, four persons had used firearms and George never said that Gilhuys had shot him.

In the release, which was issued in response to articles published in the Stabroek News and the Kaieteur News last week on her recommendation, Ali-Hack said, “as usual no one sought to get a comment from the DPP”. Stabroek News had in fact left messages at the office of the DPP for comments on various matters including the Gilhuys case, but never got a response.

“For the media and all those who wish to hastily criticize,” Ali-Hack said, “I wish to state categorically that my opinion was based on the statements sent to me by the police and nothing else,”

She said George had stated that the magistrate fired a shot but it did not hit him; he never said who had shot him and that in the end Gilhuys’ vehicle bore six gunshot holes.

According to the facts presented to the DPP: “The police in an unmarked vehicle approached a parked vehicle on Woolford Avenue. Corporal George who was the first person to exit the vehicle was not wearing police regulation uniform.”

She revealed that the medical report on the injured rank said there was “gunshot injury to the left flank and abdomen”, but this was not useful and despite a request by her for particulars of the injury, none was supplied.

Questions about whether there was one wound or two, the calibre of firearm used, whether there were two entrance wounds or one entrance and one exit wound to help determine the direction from which the bullet came and whether a bullet was found to help determine from which of the four firearms it came, could not be answered.

The DPP said the police had stated that they were assigned to patrol the lower East Bank and were returning to base when the incident occurred. “There was no proper explanation as to why the police diverted from their route especially as there was no evidence of the police having any reasonable suspicion of the commission of a criminal offence where the incident occurred so as to explain their presence there,” she said.

She added that though George’s request not to proceed with criminal proceedings was not binding, “it merits serious consideration which was accorded”.

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.

Shortly after the shooting, the magistrate proceeded on annual leave and has not returned to the bench.

Other magistrates are now handling his cases in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court as well as in the court in Linden.

Last Thursday, Police Commissioner (ag) Henry Greene told the media at a press conference, that he had just learnt from Crime Chief Seelall Persaud that the DPP had recommended no charges but that he had not seen the file.

When contacted later, the injured rank had told this newspaper during a telephone interview, “I don put this matter behind my back”.