The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

PRISON Superintendent Elliston Rahming was not found in contempt of court after a senior judge accepted that a clerical error resulted in the unintentional absence of an inmate from several court proceedings.

Supt Rahming was summoned before Senior Justice Jon Isaacs to explain why Ambrose Alexander Adderley had not appeared in the Supreme Court on three separate occasions – August 6, September 6, and October 4, 2012.

On December 11, Supt Stevenson Smith appeared for Mr Rahming, who was out of the country at the time, although a summons had been issued for his appearance.

Supt Smith said a junior prison officer had mistakenly filed the inmate Ambrose Alexander Adderley Jr as Ambrose Alexander.

Mr Smith said the officer had failed to read the entire warrant of remand when Adderley was admitted to the prison on January 5.

Adderley’s attorney, Michael Kemp, asked whether officials could offer the accused compensation for the prison’s mistake.

And Mr Kemp asked if prison staff had taken the justice’s order seriously.

Supt Smith said he could not say what compensation, if any, would be offered, but assured the court the officer responsible for the mistake would be penalised.

He apologised on the prison’s behalf

Senior Justice Isaacs was not satisfied with Supt Smith’s explanation and issued another summons calling for Dr Rahming to appear on December 19.

Yesterday, Dr Rahming said the original warrant, in the name of Ambrose Alexander, never came back to the prison on April 20 when the inmate went to court.

As a result, he said, the prison’s records never reflected a name change or the addition of “Adderley Jr”.

The prison chief said he did not personally deal with the inmate, and that an officer familiar with the matter would be better able to assist the court.

This officer told the court the computer system is incapable of automatically picking up a name change, and attributed the problem to this fact.

Mr Kemp put it to the officer that the prison knows where every inmate is housed and therefore could have found his client.

The officer said it was not that simple.

Mr Kemp then asked Senior Justice Isaacs to allow him to ask Dr Rahming a few questions before giving his closing statement, as the hearing started earlier than originally anticipated.

The judge said the matter started as proposed, and did not grant the attorney’s request.

Representing the prison officials, Director of Public Prosecutions Vinette Graham-Allen noted that the perceived error lay with the prison, but submitted that it did not appear to be deliberate.

She also expressed the hope that changes could be made to prevent similar situations in the future.

Mr Kemp did not give a closing submission, citing limited information and his inability to question the prison chief.

The court accepted Ms Graham-Allen’s submissions and told the prison officials not to let it happen again.