JP defends role in Pathways defendant’s caution statement

A Justice of the Peace (JP) has rejected suggestions that he failed to adequately perform his duties while witnessing a caution statement and question-and-answer session involving murder accused Andre Ruddock.

The JP, who witnessed the proceedings alongside another colleague, maintained that he was competent to advise Ruddock of his rights and ensured that the statement was given voluntarily.

The witness, who is testifying via video link, was challenged during cross-examination by attorney Venice Brown about his experience, recollection of the proceedings and the steps he took to ensure that Ruddock was not forced, threatened or coerced into making a statement.

The 36-year-old farmer and security guard is on trial in the Home Circuit Court for the October 17, 2021 murder of Taneka Gardner at Pathways International Restoration Kingdom Ministries in an alleged sacrificial ritual killing.

A day after the alleged murder, Ruddock gave the police a caution statement in which he reportedly confessed to cutting Gardner’s throat and indicated that he had done so on the instruction of the now-deceased church leader Kevin Smith.

During cross-examination, Brown put it to the witness: “I am suggesting that you did not adequately perform your duty before the caution statement and question and answer were done.”

The witness disagreed.

He acknowledged that October 2021 was his first experience assisting in the taking of a caution statement but rejected suggestions that he was not equipped or competent to advise Ruddock of his rights.

The JP said he could not recall asking the police whether any of them had contacted a lawyer for Ruddock. Asked whether he thought that was important, he acknowledged that it could have importance.

He was also questioned about why police personnel were asked to leave the room during the proceedings on October 18.

The witness said the main reason was to provide privacy and allow Ruddock to speak freely, while ensuring that there was no indication that the statement was being given against his will.

Brown challenged him on whether that objective would have been achieved if a video recorder had continued capturing audio and video during the conversation.

The JP initially said he could not recall with certainty whether the camera was on or off at the relevant time. After his memory was refreshed, however, he recalled that the camera had been on when a sergeant was making the introduction.

He also said he could not recall instructing the police to turn off the camera before they left the room.

During further cross-examination, the JP dismissed suggestions that he was merely accompanying the other JP and had failed to pay adequate attention to the process.

He also disagreed with the suggestion that his inability to recall the exact number of questions asked during the question-and-answer session demonstrated that he had not properly performed his duties.

The witness maintained that he and the other JP had ensured that Ruddock gave the statement and answered questions of his own free will.

Asked how he ensured that Ruddock was acting voluntarily, the witness said he asked questions and had to rely on the answers provided by Ruddock to questions posed by himself and the other JP.

He said he could not say whether Ruddock had been threatened or beaten before his arrival, insisting that he could only go by Ruddock’s responses during the process.

When it was suggested that he could not know whether Ruddock had been promised anything before his arrival, the JP disagreed, saying Ruddock had told him that he had not been promised anything.

The trial continues today, with two previous witnesses being recalled to facilitate the photographs being tendered into evidence.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com