Man freed of gun charge after cop’s conflicting accounts
Published:Friday | December 17, 2021 | 7:19 AMAndre Williams/Staff Reporter
A man held on illegal firearm charges was acquitted in the Home Circuit Court on Wednesday after a police officer gave conflicting evidence in court in comparison to that which he had stated in an interview he had given to the media.
Ramel Kelly had been charged following an incident in which a Smith and Wesson firearm was recovered along Lyndhurst Road in St Andrew in February 2020.
Allegations are that on the day of the incident, the officers got information that a car, which was suspected of being used by criminals in an earlier robbery, was intercepted along Lyndhurst Road when three men alighted and tried to escape.
Kelly was held by the lawmen and subsequently arrested and charged for the recovered firearm.
However, in an interview he gave to the press on the day of the incident, the police officer said that only two men had alighted from the vehicle.
During cross-examination, the officer sought to distance himself from the media report, but after being shown the footage, he eventually agreed that he had said that only two men had run from the vehicle, adding that he was not aware that he was being recorded during the interview.
He also said he must have made a mistake.
At the end of the trial, the judge found Kelly not guilty, partly due to the contradiction.
Defence attorney Kemar Robinson told The Gleaner that it was the third time that he had personally seen a case in which a police officer gave contradictory evidence against an accused on firearm charges.
“If he (an officer) does not have a good explanation, it would be resolved in the accused person’s favour,” Robinson said of cases in which police give conflicting testimonies.
In light of the outcome and Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ recent statement about life imprisonment for persons found guilty of illegal possession of firearm, Robinson said the Firearms Act already provides for such sentences under the appropriate circumstance.
“The reality, though, is that you have what are called sentencing guidelines and you have usual starting points ... . A lot of time, persons get in trouble for a particular offence and they are uncertain as to what the sentencing could be, but with the sentencing guidelines, a person can almost know – or have a close enough idea of – what their sentence would be,” the attorney said.
Although acknowledging that he had not spoken with his client about setbacks the case may have caused, Robinson said that the normal set of circumstances – being jailed, especially in circumstances awaiting a trial – is always uncomfortable.