Commissioner reinstates convicted police officers

In a highly controversial move, Commissioner of Police Keith Miller has reinstated the three police officers who were convicted of the assault of a 15-year-old boy last year.{{more}}

Constables Hadley Ballantyne and Osrick James and Corporal Kasanki Quow returned to active duty on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, after being convicted on February 2, 2010, on charges of assault and causing actual bodily harm to Jemark Jackson.

When contacted, Miller told SEARCHLIGHT that he used the provisions under Cap 280, Section 25, of the Police Act, which states that

“… no member of the Force, who has been convicted of any crime or offence by [a court of competent jurisdiction], shall be liable to punishment for the same offence under this Act, otherwise than by a total loss of pay during imprisonment, by reduction, by dismissal or by the loss of such good conduct badges and good conduct pay as he may possess.”

“They have been reinstated… Bally (Ballantyne) and Quow are two of my better investigators,” Miller said.

The officers have returned to the posts they held immediately prior to their suspension. Ballantyne and Quow have returned to their duties at the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), while James is attached to the Biabou Police Station.

Senior Magistrate Donald Browne found the men guilty and fined them $1,500 each, to be paid within one month. In default, each would serve six months in prison.

Browne’s decision was appealed.

The East Caribbean Court of Appeal, however, upheld Browne’s decision in a judgement delivered on February 21, 2011.

On November 18, 2008, while Jackson was 15, he was arrested and taken to the General Office of CID. In court, Jackson testified that two officers held his feet and hands, while another beat him with a hose. Jack also said he was kicked about his body and slammed three times on the floor before being hospitalised, causing him to be in a coma for a week.

Miller’s decision to reinstate the police officers has vexed Jackson’s Lawyer Jomo Thomas.

“I am extremely disappointed with the decision of the Commissioner to exercise his discretion to re-employ these officers….I would go as far and say it is a reckless and callous exercise of discretion to re-employ them,” Thomas said.

Thomas said the reason given by Miller for reinstating the men could be said of any person who runs afoul of the law.

“Anybody could be of impeccable character, get in problems with the law and is convicted…It seems to me, if this person is convicted, the fact that he might have lived up until then, an impeccably, morally upright life, is no reason not to give them the sentence they deserve,” Thomas opined.

Underscoring the fact that Jackson was almost killed, and the officers, under oath, admitted lying to their superiors, Thomas asked: “Why would you want to exercise your discretion to help these men?”

Officer Ballantyne, in his testimony at the trial, admitted to the court that he had given two different statements in the matter. He noted that the first was a random report and the second was under oath. He further stated that although he took the oath to speak the truth, he said things that were untrue, even though he knew it is an offence to do so.

James also admitted that he had lied about a statement that he wrote on November 21, 2008. He told the court he had lied to Assistant Superintendent of Police Willisford Caesar because the report was written three days after he was asked to write it, and he had written something that was untrue.

Thomas believes that the decision to reinstate the officers was based on class, because Jemark is a “nobody”.

“I am sure, the Commissioner in making his decision, sought the advice of other persons and they clearly went along with the notion that these men should be reinstated. It’s because Jemark has nobody and I’m sure if this was the Prime Minister’s daughter, or Miller’s sister or someone else, you can be absolutely certain that the discretion would not be exercised that way,” Thomas added.

Such a decision, Thomas says, is only giving the police the green light to act with impunity and continue to brutalise ordinary, poor young men and women.

“If you can almost kill a guy; go to trial; get convicted and the state authorities are going to give you a chance, it says you have no regard or concern for people…I think their conviction would have sent a message to police officers,” Thomas said.

It is Thomas’ hope that people would speak out and express their outrage by the turn of events.

A person of unsatisfactory character cannot be enlisted in the Police Force. Section 6(1) (d) of the Police Act states: “No person shall be enlisted in the Force as a non-commissioned officer or a constable unless his personal record and character are satisfactory.”

Under the law, a criminal conviction is considered to be indicative of “bad character”.

While under probation, if a police officer is found wanting in terms of character, his services may be terminated.

Section 7(4) of the Police Act says: “If at any time during the period of probation, a non-commissioned officer or constable shall be found to be wanting in character or intelligence or otherwise unfitted to be a member of the Force, his services may be terminated by the Commissioner.”