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.
