Dear Editor,
I note with great interest that there is some controversy over the perceived future of the two police ranks who were charged in the ‘teen-torture case’ which was recently dismissed in the magistrate’s court. I note that several persons are advocating that the two ranks should now be charged departmentally because they were acquitted at the criminal level. In my opinion, it would be absolutely wrong to do so.
The acts which the ranks are alleged to have committed, if true, are most reprehensible, but the fact remains that they were set free by a court of law. I do not support the assault, let alone the torture of any person, but any attempt to charge the ranks departmentally at this late stage, or even the reinstitution of criminal charges could be seen as malicious prosecution.
The simple fact of the matter is that the police administration, as it so often does, has once again bungled the case. As far as I am aware there is nothing which could have prevented the administration from proceeding with charges at the departmental and criminal levels at the same time. Had charges been brought at the departmental level with due diligence there is every likelihood that those ranks would have been found guilty and eventually separated from the Guyana Police Force long before the conclusion of the criminal case. Unfortunately it may be much too late to do so now.
I noted that the December 9, 2010, edition of the Kaieteur News carried a story in which a policeman was remanded to prison on a charge of marijuana possession. The prosecutor had objected to bail on the ground that he was no longer a member of the GPF. Since the officer was arrested less than a week before, it means that the police administration took a matter of days to dispense with his services. It means that he had to have been charged both departmentally and criminally. Unless there is some inaccuracy in the KN report, it would be enlightening for the competent department of the GPF to educate the public as to why he and the ranks in the teen-torture case were treated differently.
Yours faithfully,
Francis Carryl
