The Tribune

By CELESTE NIXON

Tribune Staff Reporter

cnixon@tribunemedia.net

A FORMER convict found innocent on appeal has filed a lawsuit claiming he was abused by police and illegally whipped by prison guards so badly his flesh was torn from his body.

Leavon Williamson, whose rape and armed robbery conviction was overturned owing to the weak and unreliable nature of the victim's identification evidence, is, according to the Statement of Claim stamped March 27, 2012, suing for general damages, including battery and assault, mental suffering, disgrace and humiliation, false imprisonment and pain and suffering caused by the flogging.

Williamson alleges that in 1994 during his arrest, he was denied his constitutional rights when held by police officers without knowing what he was being charged with and denied food, water, and bathroom facilities.

The statement said Williamson was only charged after being picked out of a line-up - after another man had already been identified by the victim as her rapist.

On February 22, 1994, shortly after 10am, Williamson was walking on Soldier Road towards his home in the Kennedy sub-division when he was approached by a car with a female passenger who would later identify him as the man who raped and robbed her.

The female passenger asked if he was working at the Sugar Kid Bowe Restaurant and Bar. He said he was not.

Shortly afterwards, according to his Statement of Claim, Williamson was apprehended by four uniformed officers in the car park of the Sugar Kid Bowe restaurant and bar.

At no point did the officers identify themselves, say what he was arrested for, or read Williamson his rights, said the Statement of Claim. Rather, the officers allegedly "hurled abuse" at him and forcibly put him in an unmarked car.

Williamson said he was taken to three different police stations within 24 hours of his arrest, still without being told what he was being charged with.

He said he was denied food, water, a bathroom and all of his rights, including the right to an attorney. During his time at the first station, in the Grove area, he said he was told by a uniformed officer "you will rot in jail."

When taken to the Criminal Investigation Department the following day, Williamson once again asked why he was being detained. He claims he was denied all information.

After some time, he was reportedly brought into a room with several other men and put in a line-up. The victim and her daughter were present and the victim was asked to identify her attacker.

The woman initially pointed to a man who was not Williamson, following which she was escorted outside the room by a police officer, according to the Statement of Claim. When she was brought back in a second time, she pointed to Williamson claiming he was her assailant, it said.

It was only at this time that Williamson was informed of the charges against him. He claims he immediately professed his innocence and was then shouted at by officers, who called him a rapist.

During his trial Williamson pleaded not guilty, however, he was not represented because he could not afford an attorney and was only provided with copies of the depositions of the preliminary inquiry for the first time, three days before proceedings began, according to his Statement of Claim.

Williamson claims he asked for the third time to have a doctor perform medical tests to prove his innocence, but this was denied by the court.

In July 1995, Williamson was found guilty of rape and armed robbery by Justice Emmanuel Osadebay and sentenced to 25 years hard labour and 12 strokes - six with the cat-o-nine tails and six with the rod.

According to his Statement of Claim, on July 21 1995, he was forced from his prison cell at Fox Hill Prison by five prison guards, into an open area on the grounds.

He claims he was forced to strip naked, tied face down on a black cross-shaped piece of equipment with both his hands and feet bound and was lashed six times, while officers taunted and mocked him.

Describing the incident in his statement, he said each lash caused excruciating pain, with every hit worse than the one before. No doctor was present at the flogging, nor were any protective garments provided.

After the flogging, Williamson claims he urinated blood for days and was unable to lie on his back for three months.

When he was forced by prison officers to put his trousers back on without any help, the loose flesh stuck to his pants - causing immediate pain - and tore off when he undressed later.

Williamson claims he was taken to the doctor three days after the flogging, when he was told he was lucky to be able to walk considering the extent and severity of his injuries.

According to the Statement of Claim, the flogging was carried out "in violation of the express provisions of section 26(a) of the Court of Appeal Act which provides that a sentence of corporal punishment 'shall not be executed until after the expiration of the time within which the notice of appeal . . . may be given under this Act'. In the Plaintiff's case, he had 21 days from the date of conviction to give his notice of appeal."

Williamson also claims that contrary to the law, the flogging was not carried out after an examination by a doctor, and constituted "the infliction of inhuman or degrading treatment and/or punishment" in violation of his rights under the constitution.

In 1996 Williamson's conviction and sentence were overturned by the Court of Appeal.

In his judgment, Justice Gonsalves-Sabola said the victim's identification of Williamson was unreliable.

The judgment noted it was dark when her assailant attacked her, the victim was also blindfolded during the assault, and in the line-up she identified another man before singling out Williamson.

He said: "The identification evidence, though no doubt honest, was palpably unreliable and incapable of supporting a conviction devoid of a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice.

"Therefore the learned trial judge should have withdrawn the case from the jury at the close of the evidence for the prosecution and directed that the appellant be discharged."