Cherry Tree Lane gun accused denied bail

One of two men arrested and slapped with gun charges in August after they were reportedly held in the Cherry Tree Lane community, Clarendon, with an illegal gun, a day after the deadly mass shooting, is to remain in custody after the High Court refused to sanction bail.

The appellant, Rick Edwards, 22, farmer of Lawson Boulevard, Four Paths, Clarendon, who was refused bail in the Gun Court section of the Clarendon Parish Court on charges of possession of a prohibited weapon and unauthorised possession of ammunition, had appealed the bail refusal in the Supreme Court on October 9, but the appeal was dismissed.

Justice Sonya Wint Blair, in refusing the application, considered, among other things, the fact that the defendant had not disclosed in his affidavit that he was on bail for murder in the Manchester Circuit Court.

Edwards and his co-accused, 24-year-old Devonte Jackson, a construction worker of Cherry Tree Lane, were arrested on August 12 after a black Taurus nine-millimetre pistol and a magazine with 12 rounds were found in a cross-body bag, which was in Jackson’s possession.

Both men had entered the community on an unregistered motorcycle, about 10: 30 a.m., when they were signalled to stop by a team of officers on patrol in the community. Edwards, who was the driver, reportedly slowed down the motorcycle but attempted to accelerate and was held. Jackson, who was the pillion rider, dropped the bag and ran off but was caught.

When cautioned, Jackson reportedly said, “Offisa, a Rick gi mi the bag, enuh, offisa. Me never know a wah in deh.”

However, after he was charged with the offences, he reportedly told the police under caution, “Offica, a mine, [the] gun,” while Edwards made no comments.

A day before the men were arrested, 17 persons were shot, eight fatally, in an attack at a shop in the community.

When the men were taken before the parish court, the judge, in her decision for refusing Edwards bail, noted “the nature and seriousness of the offence, the likely threat to public order should the defendant be released on bail, and the prevalence of the offences of the type for which the defendant is suspected of committing”.

However, Edwards challenged the refusal on grounds to include that “the learned parish judge erroneously placed significant reliance on Jackson’s caution statement, which is not evidence against the defendant, that the police officers’ statements did not establish the elements of possession, that there is no evidence linking him to the offences charged, and that the defendant is not considered a flight risk”.

Attorney-at-law Norman Godfrey, in his submission, argued that “the parish judge gave too much weight to a factor which she ought not to have taken into account at all and gave no weight to factors she ought to have taken into account”.

Additionally, he submitted that the parish judge did not consider the murder charge, which was raised by him, and further that “the mere fact of this other charge is not determinative of the issue of bail in the matter”.

Counsel for the Crown Yanique Taylor Campbell, however, told the court that her instruction was that that issue was never raised. However, she submitted that the defendant was already before the court for the charge of murder and the gun offences were alleged to have been committed while on bail for murder.

In light of the murder charge and the gun charges, she argued that the defendant was likely to commit other offences while on bail.

The judge, while noting that it was the duty of the defendant to approach the court with “clean hands and in good faith”, said that there was nothing in the parish judge’s reasons to indicate that she had been supplied with that information or any evidence that she had received the information but failed to consider it.

However, Justice Wint Blair said it was “crystal clear” that the defendant had made no mention of the murder charge in his affidavit before her.

Further, she said that notwithstanding the source of the information, neither side provided the bail conditions accorded to the defendant on that charge.

However, the judge indicated that the vast majority of the information that was required in the affidavit supporting the appeal was missing and was unhelpful to the court in determining the issues.

“Illegal firearms are a far too common feature of criminal activity in Jamaica. They pose a substantial risk of serious injury to members and to public order. The charges against the defendant are serious and carry lengthy sentences on conviction. The failure to provide this court with adequate information with which to assess the risk to the public was a factor the learned parish judge considered and amounts to sufficient cause,” the judge reasoned.

The judge also pointed to the defendant’s failure to provide the court with sufficient information in the affidavit evidence with which to assess the risk presented by the defendant as sufficient cause.

The judge subsequently concluded that “in light of the foregoing, the defendant is likely to commit another offence whilst on bail and likely to fail to attend for his trial given the seriousness, nature, and gravity of the charge against him. This latter risk is greater given the mandatory and lengthy term of imprisonment awaiting if he is convicted”.

tanisha.mundle@gleanerjm.com