Who is popular today?

The high-ranking policeman who took the decision not to charge a self-confessed criminal and former gangster turned Crown witness in the ongoing Klansman Gang trial, despite being raked over the coals on Monday, said if the police had done otherwise the witness would have clammed up."The witness, in my opinion, was credible, and on that basis I had to make a decision, having had dialogue with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It's like you do a cost-benefit analysis and I formed the view that, even if we had evidence to implicate [Witness Number One] it would have significant negative impact on the case," the cop, a deputy commissioner of police testified.According to the senior cop, "In the interest of national security and for the greater good, and in consultation with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [he] directed the officers to proceed without charging [Witness Number One]."He also insisted that he had only determined that the witness, who had worked undercover with the police from 2018 to help dismantle the alleged criminal organisation, should not be charged at the end of the investigation and not from the outset.The lawman, who said he met the witness for the first time in 2018, told the court that, that meeting was followed by several case conferences and case reviews. He said he also gave directives from time to time to the team that conducted investigations into gang activities in the St Catherine area.He testified that he was aware that the witness was interviewed and an extensive statement taken from him."I must point out that, during the period of the investigations, while the statement was being recorded, I kept in constant contact with the director of public prosecutions and a number of prosecutors at her office. During the case conferences, not only was I privy to the information given by [Witness Number One], I was also briefed regarding other lines of enquiries, and having all that information I was satisfied that there was inadequate evidence to mount an investigation against [Witness Number One]," he told the court.In the meantime, he said the information given by [Witness Number One] was corroborated by other witnesses and other types of evidence to which he was privy.Attorney for alleged leader of the gang Andre "Blackman" Bryan, Lloyd McFarlane, raked the top cop over the coals for supposedly predetermining that the witness would not be charged from the very first meeting. McFarlane stopped short of accusing the lawman of deliberately ensuring that the witness was not cautioned before giving his statements in which he incriminated himself and the other accused."...You knew that he would not have been cautioned, so you knew at that time that what he said in that regular witness statement could not be used against him... If he is charged with an offence, you can't use this statement against him, correct?" McFarlane charged.The lawman, upon indicating that this was not entirely the case, was rapped by the attorney for "changing the law".The policeman, however, stuck to his guns, insisting, "It depends on the investigation and the approach you take."Furthermore, he said, "Corroboration is necessary. I gave a directive for the statement to be recorded; I can't get down into the granular details of the statement. I had one meeting with him and based on the information I decided it would be prudent for the statement to be recorded."Trial judge Chief Justice Bryan Sykes, who has at points during the trial queried whether the constabulary has an unspoken policy of not charging informants who themselves confess to being criminals, said, "I was wondering what would it take if a person comes in and says, 'I transport gunmen to get guns, go to scene, wait for the victim... the victim is shot and killed...' I am just curious about what more could the police need if you checked out all of those stories and they are true...what more would be needed to convince the police."The policeman replied, "In my own layman's understanding of the anti-gang legislation, it was envisaged that persons within the organisation would testify against the members. In addition to that... it's a situation where you have to make a determination. Do you cause a witness, for example, to desist from giving information that is so critical to what I consider to be a significant problem that we have, especially in that part of the island."In instances when a person is cautioned [they] automatically shut down. We have to make a determination in terms of whether we have to cause a witness to, as it were, keep silent or we want to get the big picture of what is happening," he said, adding that throughout the investigations he constantly queried whether sleuths had found any evidence to implicate the witness."That was not produced to me... albeit that he gave a general picture of what transpired and his involvement, my own understanding of that is that it could not stand by itself. Had we not gotten that voluntary statement I don't think we would have gotten the information we got from him," the cop told the court.Said Justice Sykes, "This is not for you, but I am just wondering... what is the purpose of the plea-bargaining legislation? It seems to be the moral of the story that all I need to do to escape from prison is go and talk to the police because the whole point of plea bargain, I suspect, is to bargain; I give you this, you give me that."The matter is scheduled to resume this morning at 10:00 in the Home Circuit Division of the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston.