Canadian upset over robbery ordeal in presence of cops

A Canadian citizen said the way she was treated by several members of the police force when she sought to get help after a robbery ordeal on August 20, 2020, has left a bitter taste in her mouth.

She said she had to fight and plead to get some of the alleged perpetrators arrested and charged, wrestling with a number of police departments for action to be taken in the matter.

“I actually had to plead to the heads of a number of police departments for arrests to be made,” she shared with The Gleaner last week.

Even more puzzling for her is the fact that after the arrests were made, the case was put on the trial list without the case file being completed.

“Is Jamaica really serious about administering justice?” she queried.

It is her view that putting a case on the trial list for February 4 when statements were outstanding was “a backward approach” to administering justice and the disposal of cases speedily.

The case is now back on the mention list for October 21 in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court, and the complainant is hoping that all the witness statements, especially that of a police officer, will be ready so that a trial date can be set.

She said that so far, only 12 of the 18 persons allegedly involved in the incident were brought before the court. One has absconded and a bench warrant was issued for him. The other six have not yet been arrested. She said that since the arrests were made in November last year, there have been five mention dates. She has requested a virtual hearing so that she can address the judge at the next mention date.

“Despite the stress and fear I have to cope with because of this case, two policemen have tried several times to make sexual advances towards me,” she shared.

“The way I am being treated in this case is just like I am an accused.”

THE INCIDENT

The complainant had been visiting Jamaica twice per year since 2016 to spend time with her boyfriend. She said she usually stayed at a hotel,but her boyfriend encouraged her to assist him to refurbish the house he had on Manning’s Hill Road in St Andrew in order for her to stay there because she was spending too much money to stay at a hotel. She complied with his request, and after the house was refurbished, she bought furniture and other items for the house.

The relationship didn’t last, however, and in July 2020, she decided to end it. On August 20, 2020, she hired a truck to remove her furniture and other belongings, including her designer clothing, from the house in Big Yard Lane on Manning’s Hill Road.

She said for safety reasons, she sought the assistance of the Constant Spring police, and two armed policemen were sent to assist.

However, she stated that while the items were on the truck, some people in the community threw gasolene on the truck driver and tried to set him ablaze. They smashed the windshield of the truck as well as slashed the tyres on the truck and the rental car she drove and also used a knife to scratch the rental car.

When a man said the truck was not leaving with the items, people then blocked the lane and removed the items from the truck.

She said that during all this, the two policemen stood by and watched.

“When I saw what was happening, I called for police back-up, and four additional policemen came. The four policemen, along with the other two policemen who were already there, ordered the people to return the items, but only the bedroom set, which was badly damaged, was returned,” she shared.

She said that she had to spend a large sum of money to fix the truck and the rental car. Overall, her loss, including damage to property, amounted to $5.5 million.

According to the complainant, the persons who committed the acts were well known to her, and she made a report to the police and named them in her statement.

She said that she also made a report to the Independent Commission of Investigations and made a complaint in writing to Chief Justice Bryan Sykes.

The complainant, who returned to Canada earlier this year, said that since July, she has not received an update from the police as to what steps are being taken to arrest the other six alleged perpetrators.

She disclosed that when she told persons that two armed policemen were present during the incident, they laughed, saying that that could not be true.

“It is unfortunate that I am the one who had to be pressuring the police to make arrests when the perpetrators disrespected the police who were present when the robbery and malicious destruction of property took place,” she said.

“I thought the police would have taken a more active role in the apprehension of the perpetrators so as to send a signal that people cannot break the law in the presence of the police.”

The complainant said that in July, she contacted Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewelyn about the manner in which the case was being handled. However, she said she was advised to get a lawyer as the DPP would not review the file.

In response, Llewelyn said she told the complainant that there was a competent clerk of the courts handling the case. The complainant, the DPP said, wanted someone from her office to prosecute the case, but she told her that they did not have the resources. Llewelyn said that she advised the complainant that if she retained an attorney, she would grant a fiat for the lawyer to prosecute the case, who would be best able to deal with some of her personal concerns.

Following a complaint, the complainant’s former boyfriend was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, assault and malicious destruction of property.

Llewellyn disclosed that in relation to the case in the Gun Court, she assigned a senior prosecutor in her department to liaise with the complainant. An early trial date was set in that case, and her department made special arrangements for the complainant to give evidence by video link from the Jamaica Consular Office in Canada.

However, at the time, there were no-movement measures in effect in Canada because of COVID-19. The senior prosecutor said she went to the Gun Court and explained the situation, that because of the no-movement restrictions in Canada, the complainant would not be able to go to the location to testify. The trial was put off for October 26.

editorial@gleanerjm.com