Attorney argues prosecution case weak in illegal gun, ammo trial

Aug 26, 2016 News

A no case submission was yesterday presented to Magistrate Judy Latchman by Attorney Charles Ramson Jr., on behalf of his client who is currently charged for illegal firearm and ammunition possession.

CHARGED: Darryl John

The lawyer is seeking for the court to dismiss the charges against 23-year-old Darryl John, of Thomas Street, North Cummingsburg, on the grounds that the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to make a case against him, thus not necessitating his having to lead a defence.
John is accused of having a .38 revolver in his possession on September 27, 2015, when he was not the holder of a firearm licence. He is also accused of having in his possession six .38 ammunition, four 9mm ammunition and two .32 ammunition in his possession, on the same day.
The defendant has pleaded not guilty to the allegations and is currently out on bail.
It was reported that on the day in question, John whipped out a firearm and threatened to kill several police ranks who were on patrol, when they requested to conduct a search on motorcar PRR 7001, he was driving.
According to reports, when ranks approached the vehicle, John pulled out the weapon and pointed it at the ranks before speeding away. A nearby police patrol was reportedly summoned and they managed to intercept the vehicle and search it. It was reported that ranks recovered a .32 pistol and several rounds of ammunition.
Ramson told the court that there is no case for his client to answer to, based on the evidence led by Police Prosecutor Kerry Bostwick. He argued that the case of the prosecution is “weak” since it cannot secure the conviction of his client. He said that the prosecution has failed to prove the key elements of the offence – whether his client had physical control, knowledge and custody of the arms and ammunition.
According to the lawyer, the only link between his John and the firearm is an oral statement the police claimed his client gave when the allegations were put to him. Ramson said that his client never made such statement.
Ramson recalled part of the evidence given by Police Constable Cummings, a witness called by the prosecution. He said that Constable Cummings testified that he made an entry of what John told him after the allegations were put to him in the Brickdam Police Station diary.
However, the lawyer pointed out that during the trial it was revealed that the page in which the entry was made was missing from the station diary.
Ramson related that no fingerprint analysis was done on the firearm or ammunition. He said that police should have retrieved fingerprint evidence from the items they found in the vehicle, if they wanted to ascertain if his client had contact with the weapon.
In addition, Ramson raised the issue of police ranks failing to question the owner of the car his client was driving, and also a passenger who was in the vehicle at the time it was stopped and searched. He stated that his client made it known to police that he was not the owner of the vehicle. He said that this was confirmed by police after checking several of the vehicle’s documents. Ramson added that in spite of this, police ranks failed to make contact with and question the owner of the vehicle.
In response to these contentions, Prosecutor Bostwick told the court that a Prima Facie case was made out against John for the offences charged. He recounted that seven witnesses testified on behalf of the prosecution and urged the court to believe the evidence given by Constable Cummings, who searched the car in the presence of the defendant and other ranks. The prosecutor noted that after the alleged firearm and ammunition were found in the vehicle, they were shown to John, and he remained silent.
It was at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Brickdam Police Station, Bostwick said, that John uttered to Constable Cummings, “Sir, about 15 days ago I find the firearm with the rounds in Albouystown and was planning to hand it over to the police,” after the allegations of possession of illegal firearm and ammunition were put to him.
According to Bostwick, police ranks who were present at the CID office witnessed when John and Constable Cummings were engaged in the dialogue.
Magistrate Latchman is expected to make a decision today.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News