Army officer testifies soldiers acted in good faith

The senior army officer who commanded the unit linked to the death of businessman Keith Clarke said based on an aerial video which captured shooting on the grounds of the premises, he believes that the soldiers “acted in good faith”.

“Having seen the video, I was of the view that we were well justified in going to Kirkland Close in search of Dudus and gunmen, and I was satisfied that we acted in good faith,” Brigadier Mahatma Williams testified on Tuesday under cross-examination from King’s Counsel Valerie Neita-Robertson.

The 63-year-old accountant was shot 21 times inside his master bedroom at his Kirkland Close, St Andrew home, on May 27, 2010, during a police-military operation to apprehend then-fugitive drug lord Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke.

Three soldiers – lance corporals Greg Tingling and Odel Buckley as well as Private Arnold Henry – are currently on trial in the Home Circuit Court on murder charges before Justice Dale Palmer.

The aerial video, which was disclosed on Monday by the prosecution, was recorded by the Jamaica Defence Force from a helicopter.

Neita-Roberston, who is representing Tinglin, had two weeks earlier notified the court that the video had not been disclosed on the defence, however, sought to have the video admitted into evidence and shown to Williams.

INADMISSIBLE

But lead prosecutor, Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Jeremy Taylor, objected on the basis that the video was inadmissible as its creator was unknown.

Neita-Robertson had enquired from Williams whether he had seen the video. While admitting that he had, Williams shared that the footage was recorded from a helicopter that he had requested for air support on the night of the operation.

He testified that after the incident, he and others reviewed the video, which showed that the soldiers came under attack from insurgents inside the Clarkes’ premises and that the soldiers had followed the requisite drills.

Williams also told the court that the Jamaica Defence Force had relied on intelligence, which led them to the premises.

While being questioned by Neita-Robertson, Williams said that while he was heading to Kirkland Close, his team came under attack.

Meanwhile, the witness, while being re-examined by Taylor, was asked to explain why he told Neita-Robertson that his team came under attack but said in his evidence-in-chief that he heard gunfire.

Taylor said the responses are completely different.

“Sir,” he responded, “part of the process of knowing that you are under effective fire is first to hear the crack of the weapon. The second part is to hear the bullets, either passing you or hitting objects near to you or seeing the rounds being ricocheting. We were under effective fire, Sir.”

“You still have not answered,” Taylor replied “My question was: Can you explain the difference between the two answers?”

Neita-Robertson then intervened with an objection.

“There is absolutely no difference. He heard gunfire, which means he was under attack. My learned friend is just fishing,” she said.

The judge, however, agreed that there is a difference.

But, in answering, Williams said: “I have no explanation. They are both the same.”

Further, in re-examination, Williams agreed that when the incident happened, the country was under a state of emergency, but said he did not know whether that gave the army broad powers.

OBJECTION

“Under a state of emergency – and in particular the one on the 27th of May 2010 – you were authorised to kill?” Taylor asked.

However, defence lawyers quickly objected before Williams could answer.

King’s Counsel Peter Champagnie, who is representing Buckley, said Taylor had no basis on which to ask that question as it does not arise under any rule of law. His colleague, Linton Gordon, who is representing Henry, said, moreover, there was no evidence before the court that any such authorisation was given to anybody.

Neita-Roberson, while pointing out that Williams was the prosecution witness, said the question was highly speculative and prejudicial.

In response, Taylor said numerous questions were asked eliciting an opinion from Williams on whether he was justified in the actions on that day, pointing specifically to Neita-Robertson’s question on whether he was of the view that he and his men acted in good faith on that date.

“The way it was couched, it was really couched for all the actions that happened on that day, for which he is the commanding officer that day,” Taylor said.

“And, My Lord, how does killing come into that, authorised to kill? The witness has answered many questions about how they are trained, the threats that they faced, and what they are to do in the event of threat.

“That’s a completely out-of-order question to ask and I am surprised,” Neita-Robertson remarked.

“You know, My Lord, it is not out of order; it is a murder trial and somebody was allegedly killed,” Taylor answered.

The judge, however, indicated that he could not permit that question as he did not recall any evidence about authorisation to kill and further that he was concerned about the prejudicial effect of how it is framed.

In the meantime, the trial was adjourned and is set to restart in the new court term on September 16.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com