Dear Editor,
Based on queries which I have been receiving, I am inclined to believe that there are some persons who would like to see me continue contributing to the letter columns of our newspapers. The truth be told, I had quietly withdrawn from that platform in much the same way as a seasoned gun-fighter on the western frontier hung up his guns when fighting no longer mattered to him. However, like the mighty ‘Chalk Dust’ did in 1976, on observing several troubling and worrisome events, I am left with no alternative but to declare that “Ah put on meh guns again.”
The garbage in the city troubles some of us. Some of us are troubled by politics and economics. But like the majority of us, I am troubled by crime and the quality of policing in this dear nation of ours. I initially decided to write about ‘Murder 100,’ but somehow, I didn’t feel quite comfortable with that subject so I quickly switched to ‘Acquittal 101.’ But even that did not rest well with my conscience, so I decided to settle for ‘Negligence 404.’
This subject was influenced by the development of a most disturbing trend with murder trials in the recent past. On July 27, the SN recalled that in a matter of two months there were four acquittals in murder cases. Three of those acquittals were in the High Court while one was in a magistrate’s court.
It is interesting to note that in the three High Court cases, the judges attributed the acquittals to, among other things, poor identification parade, poor police investigations, pure incompetence and negligence on the part of the police, who obviously had passed the course titled ‘Negligence 404’ with distinction.
Both Justices William Ramlal and Roxanne George in whose courts three of the matters were heard, expressed sympathy with the prosecution who they said did their best with the weak cases and poor evidence presented to them by the police. With all the deficiencies in the cases unearthed by the trial judges one wonders how on earth they got past the Magistrate’s court and ended up in the High Court.
The cases recently highlighted by Stabroek News come one year after the accused in the Palm Court murder trial was acquitted. We have heard all sorts of allegations against the police. These include, bribery, brutality of the worst kind, conspiracy to commit wrongdoing, robbery and extortion, to name a few, but none of those is so vile as what occurred in the investigations preceding the Palm Court murder trial.
The trial judge found that three of the investigating ranks were guilty of suppression of evidence, which could have proved the innocence of the accused at a much earlier stage. In my opinion that was one of the most revolting and wicked things that any law enforcement agent or agency could do. It reminded me of the 1972 trial in the US of Geronimo Pratt who was made to spend 27 years in jail because the prosecution suppressed evidence which could have proved his innocence.
What can be more sinful and dreadful than the suppression of evidence? Negligence and pure incompetence is one thing, but when an officer individually or in complicity with others deliberately acts or fails to act so that the freedom and very existence of an innocent person is seriously compromised, it is far worse.
It is abundantly clear that if the relatives of the accused who were acquitted could not have afforded high priced lawyers, they might have remained in prison.
This causes me to wonder about the number of persons who have wrongfully spent years in prison before being acquitted or who are still there because of the suppression of evidence.
I have noticed that in the schoolgirl murder PI in which the accused also was acquitted, a hostile witness was – on the advice of the DPP – charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and is currently facing trial. I have noticed also, that in the Palm Court murder case the trial judge recommended that three investigative ranks be charged with perjury. Can anyone say what has become of that recommendation?
Regardless of what the answer may be, I am convinced that ranks functioning at the upper level of law enforcement, will suppress evidence partly because they have been encouraged and supported in negligence at the lower level.
Finally, I wish to observe that the trend in acquittal for murder is complemented by the trend of the granting of bail for the same offence.
Yours faithfully,
Francis Carryl
