My perspective on why Magistrate Gilhuys was not charged

Sep 02, 2008 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
I have read articles in the SN of the 29 August 2008 and Kaieteur News newspapers of the 29 August 2008 and the 31st August 2008, emphasising that the DPP recommended no charges against Magistrate Gilhuys. As usual, no one sought to get a comment from the DPP.

For the media and all those who wish to hastily criticise, I wish to state categorically that my opinion was based on the statements sent to me by the police, and nothing else. The following facts which were not in dispute were before me:

1. Cpl George, who was injured, stated that Gilhuys fired a shot which did not hit him;
2. Cpl George did not state who shot him;
3. On the night in question, four persons used firearms, Gilhuys, Cpl George and two other police ranks; in fact, Gilhuys’s vehicle bore six gunshot holes;
4. Two different calibres of firearms were used;
5. The police, in an unmarked vehicle, approached a parked vehicle in Woolford Avenue.
Cpl George, who was the first person to exit the vehicle, was not wearing police regulation uniform;

The medical report on Cpl George stated there was “gunshot injury to left flank and abdomen”. This was not helpful, and despite a request by me for particulars of the injury, none was supplied to explain the following questions:

i) Whether there was one or two wounds;
ii) The size of the wound, to determine the calibre of firearm used;
iii) Whether there were two entrance wounds or one entrance wound and one exit wound, to assist me to determine the direction from whence the bullet(s) came;
iv)Whether a bullet was found, so it can be analysed ballistically so as to determine from which of the four firearms it was fired?

7. Based on the deficient statements sent to me, I found there was not sufficient evidence to institute criminal charges.

8. Further, the police stated that they were assigned to patrol the lower East Bank, headed by Cpl George, and at the time of the incident they were returning to Eve Leary. There was no proper explanation as to why the police diverted from their route, especially as there was no evidence of the police having any reasonable suspicion of the commission of a criminal offence where the incident occurred, so as to explain their presence there.

9. Finally, Kaieteur News of Friday August 29, 2008 stated that George was shot in “the right side of his back and the bullet exited the abdomen”, while SN of Friday August 29, 2008 stated George was “hit in the back. The bullet exited through his abdomen …” I did not receive this information. I received a medical report, which stated “gunshot injury to left flank and abdomen”.

10. Cpl George wrote requesting that he did not wish any criminal proceedings be taken in this matter, since it was not in his best interest. Even though his request is not binding, it merits serious consideration, which was accorded.

Shalimar Ali-Hack
Director of Public Prosecutions