Out in the cold

More than a decade since he was dismissed from the Jamaica Fire Brigade (JFB) after a criminal conviction that has now been overturned, Dwain Brown is fighting for reinstatement.

He was convicted in the then St Thomas Resident Magistrate’s Court in November 2009 and handed a fine with a term of six months’ imprisonment at hard labour suspended for 12 months.

His attorney-at-law gave an immediate oral notice of appeal and later filed grounds of appeal on 17 September 2010, after leave was granted for them to have been filed out of time.

But even before the appeal was filed, on March 1, 2010, Brown was dismissed from service, with the JFB board citing an opinion from the then-Dorothy Lightbourne-headed Attorney General’s Chambers that it had no moral or ethical obligations to the former fireman.

University and Allied Workers Union (UAWU) President Lambert Brown believes the JFB’s decision and the opinion of the attorney general were wrong.

“ ... Firing is governed by and controlled by the [Fire Brigade] Act of Parliament. In that act, there is a regulation that specifically says if a criminal matter has arisen to affect your member of the Brigade, you may interdict the member, and you must await the outcome of the criminal action in court,” Lambert Brown, who is also a senator, told The Sunday Gleaner.

He was referring to Section 35 of the Fire Brigade Act Regulations, which state that disciplinary action, including dismissal, should not occur until after criminal proceedings have been concluded and all appeals exhausted.

“Simply put, you can’t terminate the [employment of a] person until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted,” Lambert Brown said. “The JFB did not do that.”

The veteran trade unionist reasoned that the attorney general ought to have been aware of the provision before offering an opinion.

He added that current JFB Commissioner Stewart Beckford told him that only the board can overturn a decision made by previous boards, but there has been no response from the current board despite his efforts.

The inaction has been agonising for Dwain Brown, whose decade-long legal battle stemmed from a dispute with a young woman with whom he was allegedly in a secret intimate relationship and who owed him money. He alleged that while visiting her home to collect the remainder of the debt, she falsely accused him of inappropriate behaviour.

“I lent her $12,000 and she give me part of the money and tell me to follow her home for the rest. Mi go to her home, mi don’t do her anything. And when me leaving and she letting me out, she say mi touch her pon her breast. A dat mi lose mi job fah, enuh,” he said.

The prosecution argued that on the night of December 11, 2008, Dwain Brown managed to enter the woman’s house, which she had locked after reaching home earlier. When she was in the process of opening the grille to go to the police station to report his intrusion, he allegedly indecently touched her on her right breast.

At the trial, one of the ex-firefighter’s former colleagues testified that he had also lent the woman money and that on one occasion, he saw Dwain Brown give her money. He further said that he had seen the woman sitting in Brown’s lap at the fire station. A taxi driver also testified that on one occasion, Dwain Brown paid him to take the woman home.

“During the trial, I begged the court to get the phone records to see the messages – to see the communication – between me and the young lady to show that it was about money. They didn’t act on it. I was a squad leader at training school. If you check out my record, I was in the top three ... . I just passed the lance corporal exam and come up on the promotion when this happened,” he further explained.

The appeal was initially filed on four grounds, with the defence later indicating that additional grounds would be added upon a review of the judge’s notes of evidence. Those grounds were the failure of the trial judge to provide reasons for her decision; the decision was against the weight of evidence; the judge’s failure to consider numerous inconsistencies in the case, especially in the evidence of the virtual complainant; and that the judge was openly hostile to and impatient with the defendant and his then attorney.

At the hearing of the appeal, however, only ground about the failure of the judge to account for her decision was argued and the others abandoned.

The arguments were heard by Justices Patrick Brooks, Marva McDonald-Bishop and Justice F. Williams with the Crown represented by then Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn and Syleen O’Gilvie.

The appeal judges acknowledged that “although the [trial judge’s] notes of evidence were not produced until around June of 2019, no findings of fact or reasons were ever provided, which was the prime factor impelling us to the [acquittal]”.

They added: “In the court’s experience, it would be most unusual for a judge to have only pronounced a defendant guilty without any reasons, however brief, being given. So, although we had no information on the matter either way, we recognised that it was not beyond the realm of possibility that the learned judge of the parish court might have given an oral judgment, explaining the bases for the findings of fact made in this case; and it was just that the note of that judgment had not been located.

“Even if that was done, however, we also recognised that it would not have been in keeping with what is expected or required by the [Judicature (Parish Courts)] Act.”

Despite his exoneration, Dwain Brown has been left without his job and facing personal hardship. He cited the collapse of an $800,000 insurance policy he had taken out for his father, which lapsed due to his inability to make payments during the lengthy court proceedings. He got no payout from the policy.

He further noted the emotional toll and struggles in raising his two children – one of whom is now an adult – alone. Their mother, he said, left him after he was dismissed from the JFB.

“My case took 10 years. And after decision, it took nearly another two years for the case to be finalised with the written judgment. When mi finally win and a jump fi joy and believe say mi a go back a work, dem (the JFB) say a di board did fire me,” the ex-firefighter said. “Is pure foolishness gwaan.”

After his conviction was overturned, Dwain Brown’s attorney, Lawrence Hayes, wrote to the JFB requesting his reinstatement with full benefits. However, he remains out of work.

Correspondence shared with The Sunday Gleaner showed that in April 2020, the JFB said a review of his file showed that Dwain Brown’s service was terminated following a recommendation from the then commissioner.

On February 1, 2023, Beckford again wrote to attorney Haynes, acknowledging receipt of his two letters dated December 6, 2022, and January 11, 2023, asking for his client’s full reinstatement.

On October 22, 2023, the JFB said the matter was referred to the board for consideration.

He later wrote to say that the current board considered an opinion from the Attorney General’s Chambers, which indicated that the JFB was under no legal or moral obligation to reinstate “ex-firefighter Brown, and as such your request for his reinstatement with all rights and privileges from the date of your client’s suspension to the present time is not accepted”.

In 2023, when the UAWU also wrote to the JFB requesting a meeting to discuss the matter, the commissioner responded by saying that the board was not averse to meeting with the union but would need the ex-firefighter’s permission, as Hayes was representing him in the matter.

While he remains hopeful that justice will eventually prevail, the delay in his reinstatement has left Dwain Brown and his family in limbo.

“I can’t wait to put on my foreman uniform again. Is a uniform I wear with pride and when I was on active duty, I never did anything to dishonour the service. My talking to you is not to dishonour the service, but Jamaica must know what is happening,” he told The Sunday Gleaner.

erica.virtue@gleanerjm.com