Public defender wants cop charged for King haircut
Published:Thursday | April 7, 2022 | 12:07 AMTanesha Mundle/Staff Reporter
Public Defender Arlene Harrison Henry is recommending that the police corporal who was accused of cutting Nzinga King’s hair be charged with assault after an investigation by her office found that the woman cut the teenager’s locks out of revenge.
Harrison, in a 67-page report on the incident that sparked public outrage, made a raft of recommendations, including damages for the assault that was committed by the police and the violation of her constitutional rights in respect of the cutting of her hair.
King, a 19-year-old student from Lionel Town in Clarendon, alleged that her dreadlocks were trimmed by a policewoman while in custody at the Four Paths Police Station in Clarendon in July last year.
King, who was arrested for disorderly conduct stemming from a June 2021 incident at a taxi park in May Pen, also alleges that her dreadlocks were cut because the police said they were a suicide risk.
But after months of delay in the investigation, which was turned over to the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) by the police, the Director of Public Prosecution, Paula Llewellyn, had recommended that the police corporal should not be charged. A similar recommendation was made by INDECOM.
Harrison, in her report, said that there was no material evidence to support the argument that King’s hair was cut because she is a Rastafarian.
“The cutting of Ms King’s hair was inspired by revenge and venom in response to Ms King’s undeniable deplorable conduct,” the report said.
While describing King’s boisterous behaviour as beyond unacceptable, the report said she posed no threat to the police but that violence of the most “painful and personal nature was inflicted upon her to teach her a lesson and to forcibly bring home to her ‘who run tings’”.
As a result, Harrison is recommending that the corporal be charged with assault occasion bodily harm or assault at common law and further, that disciplinary action be taken against her by the police force.
“The Office of the DPP should, therefore, develop an interest in her conduct at the Four Paths Police Station towards Ms King. There cannot be any serious question as to identification. The issue is purely one of credibility,” the report said.
The public defender also called for the corporal’s supervisor, an inspector who was on duty at the time of King’s alleged haircut, to face disciplinary action for not taking any steps to prevent the “criminal conduct” or failing to act having discovered negligence in her duties.
Other recommendations include returning a portion of the fines paid by King at the Clarendon Parish Court, claiming that she was charged beyond the stipulated fines; a repeal of the Towns and Communities Act; and an amendment to the Parish Court Jurisdiction Act to make fines a default in payment, which attracts a prison term prorated in circumstances where the term has started before the convicted person is able to pay.
Llewellyn had explained that several inconsistencies were found in the case and that based on the civilian witness’ account, King had pulled out her own hair.
She had also indicated that no trace of the policewoman’s DNA was found on the locks.
Meanwhile, Llewellyn said in a Gleaner interview on Wednesday that she stands by her ruling, insisting that the prosecution would be unable to mount a viable case.
“It would appear from my cursory reading of the report that my learned friend, the public defender, did not have the benefit of the abundance of the material that the ODPP and INDECOM would have had in our assessment,” said Llewellyn.
“We lifted some 26 statements, including scenes of crime and forensic reports. And these assessments, as seasoned prosecutors, we make every day at every level.”