If the ultimate no case submission against the three police officers charged with the murder of Andrew Bisson recently does nothing, it demonstrates that the resources being wasted on INDECOM would be better utilized upgrading the office of Director of Public Prosecution(DPP).
The three officers, Detective Corporal Kevin Adams, District Constable Howard Brown and Constable Carl Bucknor were arrested and charged for the killing of Andrew Bisson in a police operation on September 5, 2011.
As the Prosecution’s case ground to a screeching halt like a creaky old automobile whose engine had completed its final revolution, the lead prosecutor, Queen’s Counsel Caroline Hay told the court, the prosecution would be unable to negate the defense’s position of self-defense.
If the prosecution was unable, after 8 years to negate the defendant’s claims, [as police officers carrying out their duties], why were they charged and held in custody and subjected to all the attendant negative ramifications which accompany a criminal trial?
Why the case was brought in the first place must be the question, and that question should now be the center of any position forward for the Police Federation, [if for no-one else]?
It is imperative that the system of justice be fair to all JAMAICANS, not just the privileged few who dwell in ivory towers above Cross-Roads.
In that regard, Jamaicans can least afford to have the voices of those privileged few dominate policy positions as they are the least and last to be negatively impacted by violent crimes.
Already there have been some preemptive salvos launched about what should happen to police officers who plant evidence in order to gain convictions.
None of those voices have said a single word about how Terrence Williams, Hamish Campbell and INDECOM manipulated a disgruntled constable [Chucky Brown], not only to confess and criminally implicate himself in murders, but to lie on his colleagues.
It was clear during the trial that not only was the evidence before the court shaky but it appeared that the investigating agency INDECOM, produced expert witnesses who were………… let’s just say, less than experts.
During the trial, Chief Justice Bryan Sykes the trial judge expressed concern about whether the accused policemen were afforded an objective and fair investigation? Mind you, not a fair trial, but a fair investigation, that ought to give everyone pause.
What I haven’t heard is a single peep from any of the self-righteous criminal defense lawyers who have an opinion on everything speak to this comment from the chief justice.
The Judge further added critically,[ that it seemed that the accused were being targeted by the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM)].
Again, its crickets from the usually vociferous self-proclaimed authorities on the law and morality in our tiny ticky-ticky pond.
Is justice for everyone but members of the police force?
According to sources in the courtroom, the Defense presented a document which indicated that the error rate for a properly/trained examiner with the required competence is between 3.4% – 6. 5%.
Additionally, those who were of substandard training, the error rate is between 15-25%.
Witnesses who testified on behalf of INDECOM disagreed with terminologies and set standards used by renowned experts.
One witness, in particular, was unable to agree with clear inconsistencies which were clear even to the untrained eye.
Justice Sykes told the Home Circuit Court, in the absence of the jury, that he first became concerned when accused Detective Corporal Kevin Adams and District Constable Howard Brown were identified as ‘Gaza Man’ and ‘Chucky’, respectively, by a Crown witness.
That same witness the next day admitted that he made a mistake.
It is important to understand that the experts used by INDECOM were indeed substandard.
And that the reason that the prosecution could not even meet the most basic prosecutorial standards which would have forced the three officers to mount a defense, was the incompetence of INDECOM’s own expert witnesses and the weakness of the evidence presented to the court.
On these fault lines in the system, the lives and liberty of members of the JCF are being decided by the very testimony given by these individuals on behalf of INDECOM.
On these types
From the beginning of the process, which brought INDECOM into existence I argued that before a body like INDECOM is created appropriate levels of resources, (as was economically possible), should be appropriated to bring the Justice system up to credible standards.
Which meant, upgrading the police and courts so that delivery of the justice product can be timely and fair, critical requirements for reducing crime.
I argued then, despite protestations to the contrary, that creating INDECOM would cause crime to escalate as people would be emboldened to be disrespectful not just to individual police officers but to the collective we refer to as the rule of law.
On that alone, I have been vindicated ten times over as INDECOM is turning out to be an out of control
Oversight of the Police is a foregone conclusion. however, there were effective oversight of the police, (several layers) which had greater measurable success beyond anything INDECOM has achieved since it came into existence.
The arguments proffered by enemies of the police and those clamoring for INDECOM was that the police cannot police the police.
Those catchy buzz terms sounded rather good to those detractors but they never bothered to think about the several civilian complaint bodies which existed pre INDECOM.
The narrative was far too juicy, it sounded far too rational, even for some ex-members who clamored for more oversight without understanding the delicate balance which ought to exist between oversight and qualified immunity.
What those layers of oversight lacked were agendas antithetical to the good of the nation.
INDECOM has no loyalty to the nation, it has no commitment to nation-building, as the JCF has done, giving blood and tears throughout its existence.
INDECOM is dedicated to the ego of an egomaniacal narcissist, its mission is geared toward deconstructing the JCF to the delight of those who argued for its creation.
As an aside, what exactly has Antony Anderson done differently, (no scratch that ) done better than the previous two commissioners of police who preceded him?
There is no one clamoring for a change of the commissioner of police.
Could that be because he was never a police officer?
I believe the nation’s dirty drawers is showing on this and the odor is rather obnoxious.