Fish shop shooting…Police, DPP play blame game

May 16, 2014 News

---

A major controversy has occurred over the discharging of charges against two policemen who were before the court for the shooting of a man outside the White Castle Fish Shop, with the Guyana Police Force and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) throwing blame at each other.
The matter has been given wide media coverage ever since the parents of the victim, Dameon Belgrave, accused the police of a cover-up to protect another rank who they say has gotten off scot free, although ballistic evidence points to him being responsible for their son’s death.
Belgrave was fatally shot in Hadfield Street, Georgetown, during a police operation on October 05, 2012.

Two cops were charged with manslaughter relating to the death. But according to the police ballistic expert’s testimony, their weapons were not responsible for the fatal wound that Belgrave received.
In fact according to the police expert, the bullet that might have killed Belgrave was fired from a gun that was used by another rank who had not been charged.
It was based on this evidence that Magistrate Ann McLennan discharged the matter against policemen, Sheldon Williams and Errol Williams.
The Police Force is accusing sections of the media of using the organization as a scapegoat in the matter and issued a statement to support their position.
For starters, the police said that the file in the matter had been sent by the police to the Chairman of the Police Complaints Authority and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the process of seeking legal advice before the charges were instituted.
The Force said that it acted on legal advice obtained from the competent authority and will continue to do so in the future. It pointed out that the statement of the Police Ballistics Expert was in the file prior to legal advice being given.
With regards to the prosecutor in the matter, the police said that he is part of the Early Case Assessment Programme (ECAP), and operates out of the Chambers of the DPP and not from any police location.
“The Guyana Police Force wishes to advise that it accepts criticisms in good faith and is continuously making efforts to address excesses and deficiencies of its ranks. However, the Police Force also wishes to bring to the notice of the public the efforts of some sections of the media to continuously use the police as a scapegoat for every negative in the justice system. The process forward in the Dameon Belgrave matter is for the DPP to examine the depositions and take a decision on how the police or the court proceeds with the matter,” the police statement said.
A few hours later the DPP’s office responded with a statement of its own claiming that it advised the police on the basis of their own investigations and the statements they provided.
“The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Shalimar-Ali-Hack wishes to state that in relation to the Dameon Belgrave fatal shooting matter, that the charge against Const. Fraser was not instituted because of all the available evidence in the police file,” Communications Officer in the DPP’s Chambers Liz Rahaman wrote.
A legal source has opined that given the publicity that the issue has generated and the controversy that has developed, the two sides should sit down with each other and come up with a solution.
“To say that the prosecutor operated out of the DPP’s Chambers is a total insult to the intelligence of this nation, especially when the prosecutor is a serving member of the Guyana Police Force,” a senior functionary in the legal profession told this newspaper.
This newspaper was reliably informed that the matter had been dealt with by two prosecutors, both of whom are police ranks.
The legal source questioned whether the prosecutor knew from the inception what was contained in the ballistic expert’s statement.
“Maybe that is why the DPP is saying that she could only advise based on all the ‘available’ evidence,” the legal source said.
Donna Sulker, the dead man’s mother told this newspaper last evening that she was suspicious since the initial stages of the preliminary inquiry, and had wanted to visit the office of the DPP to express her concerns.
However, since she could not immediately locate the office, she passed up on the idea, trusting that her suspicions would have been proven wrong.
She told this newspaper that when she enquired from the first prosecutor why only two policemen were charged, since there were reports that three of them were shooting on that night outside the fish shop, she was told that the third policeman could not have been charged since his weapon was not linked to the shooting.
She said she was surprised when the ballistic expert gave evidence to the contrary.
Kaieteur News understands that attorney at law Nigel Hughes has written to the DPP on behalf of Belgrave’s family requesting an immediate review of the matter, “with a view that the proper party is charged and prosecuted”.
According to the legal source, “given the publicity that the thing has generated, it is now likely that the DPP may consider reviewing the matter.”

---

---