The police have come under a great deal of criticism recently, more particularly over their handling of the Middle Street shootings the week before last. That was, of course, a very public display of their shortcomings, but there is another area in which they operate that is less exposed but has been no less revealing of their incompetence.
Last Tuesday, a murder charge was discharged at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on the grounds that insufficient evidence had been offered by the prosecution during the preliminary inquiry, and a prima facie case had not been made out. There is nothing particularly unusual about a charge being dismissed at the preliminary inquiry stage, but this case was unusual.
Even the public was aware of what at least one major item of evidence was, namely, a video recording from a nearby shop showing Carlyle Barton ‒ the man who was subsequently charged ‒ walking south along Orange Walk, and Shawn Nelson ‒ the man who was fatally shot ‒ making his way north on the day the shooting occurred. We reported that as the two men were approaching a parked car, the footage showed Barton pulling out a gun, aiming it at Nelson and then pulling the trigger. Thereafter, he opened the car door on the driver’s side, entered the vehicle and drove off. At that stage, we reported, Nelson was still alive and his body could be seen on the recording shaking from the shock.
While closed circuit TV cameras festoon the lampposts of the city, and can be found outside business places and even private homes, they have produced little of consequence that could be used in court. So the fact that there is video evidence of quality in this instance, is something of a breakthrough. The problem is, it was never produced at the preliminary inquiry. A relative of Nelson to whom this newspaper spoke, said that the investigating rank had testified about the content of the footage in court, but had not returned to tender it into evidence. We reported on Thursday that the rank in question had informed the court that the video recording was locked in the station cupboard and that the officer-in-charge was the one with the key. However, the latter had not yet arrived at the time the rank left for court.
The relative also recounted that the investigating officer never went back to court, and whenever his name was called, the court was told he was at another location. He was not the only policemen who absented himself it seems; Nelson’s relative told SN that there were about 12 witnesses down to appear on the witness stand, at least half of whom were members of the police force. “There was so many police officers that were not coming to the case,” he remarked ruefully. The relative did recall that before discharging Barton, the magistrate had made reference to the fact that the ranks had not come to court, while at one stage she had issued an arrest warrant for one of them, although the relative could not remember which one.
If one case raising questions about the police was not enough in one week, there was a second, this time in the High Court. A septuagenarian accused of murdering her partner was freed following the failure of the prosecution to tender the post mortem report. Senior State Counsel Judith Mursalin-Bacchus explained that this meant that that the state could not establish the identity of the victim, what caused the victim’s death, or even that he was in fact dead. The document, it might be noted, was not tendered during the preliminary inquiry either.
The court was told by a police corporal that he had been present at the autopsy on the victim, carried out by Government Pathologist Dr Nehaul Singh, and when the body was identified by the deceased’s brother. He went on to testify that on April 20, 2008, he had collected the post-mortem report and lodged it at the Leonora Police Station. And what happened to it thereafter? No one knows, it seems.
The first thing to be noted is that in the Barton preliminary inquiry it was a police prosecutor who presented the case. According to Nelson’s relative, he had nothing to say about the police witnesses not turning up to testify, while it might be observed that he also did not ask the magistrate for more time so the evidence could be brought to court. It was not a creditable performance.
The second thing is that despite their egregious failures, the police did not exercise the option of re-arresting Barton outside the court, as they had done in at least one case previously (see story on page 9).
The third thing is that there seems to be absolutely no sense among the police hierarchy that when their officers are called to testify in a case, barring some very unusual circumstances, that this constitutes a priority; it is simply unacceptable for police witnesses to be called during a preliminary inquiry or a trial and for them not to appear. It is even worse when they are supposed to bring key evidence with them and they fail to do so, subsequently not being seen again in the court.
The absence of police witnesses from court can undermine a case, and if done regularly – which may well be what obtains ‒ will subvert the entire justice system. What does Eve Leary think its officers should be doing if not discharging their duty to help see that justice is done? There have been complaints before about the difficulty of getting convictions in the courts, although the police have never acknowledged the part they have been playing in some of these instances. A trigger-happy mentality on the part of the force is not and never was the answer to the crime situation; due process through the court system is what is required, and the public expects to see due process and does not expect the police to thwart it.
It is true, of course, that the GPF is undermanned, and that there are sometimes inordinate delays in the courts, but as said above, that does not alter the fact that the onus is on the police to appear when required to do so, and to provide evidence when the court demands it. Anything less is dereliction of duty.
Which brings us to the fourth thing, which is the storage of evidence. The public has long been aware of the amazing facility some files and evidence connected with court cases have for vanishing into thin air. As such, the example of the missing post-mortem report cited above is hardly singular. Some of the disappearances may be accounted for by sheer incompetence, careless handling or a lack of strict adherence to whatever protocols do exist, but there is a perception that some of it is accounted for by good old-fashioned corruption. At this low point in its history, the Guyana Police Force cannot allow this situation to continue. (Case files after a charge has been brought are in the custody of the court system, although it must be noted that there are instances where these have displayed an unnerving propensity for dematerializing too.)
Clearly the Police Commissioner and his senior officers need to look at the whole question of the custody of evidence, and what protocols are in place for its preservation, safe-keeping and production in court. It is likely that nowadays the police have to retain a much larger volume of evidence than used to be the case, while the system for its conservation, security and retrieval is outmoded, not fit for purpose and in need of a total overhaul in our current circumstances. In addition, court cases often take a long time to come to trial, and one suspects that there are no official arrangements in place for the regular checking of the evidence inventory.
There is one problem, of course, which is not of police making, but which the senior officers need to address their minds to nonetheless. Sometimes cases take so long to come to trial that the police witnesses scheduled to testify have left the force. However, there must be arrangements in place whereby they can be tracked down and asked to appear in court ‒ something which is surely not impossible in these days of instant communication.
Finally, following the disgraceful performance of his officers in the Barton case, Commissioner Leroy Brumell should mount an investigation into what happened during the preliminary inquiry and why, and discipline those ranks who failed in their duty.
