The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

RODNEY Moncur was expected to respond to evidence the Crown prosecutors presented in Magistrate’s Court against him for posting “grossly indecent” pictures on his Facebook page. The photographs were of the body of Jamie Smith, who had died in police custody.

However, the prosecution’s last witness – who said he had been summoned to the Supreme Court – was not present for his evidence to be read into the record yesterday, thus delaying Mr Moncur from presenting his own submissions.

Magistrate Constance Delancey, who is presiding over Mr Moncur’s preliminary inquiry into the allegations, told the accused that Supreme Court matters took precedence over matters in the Magistrate’s court. Inspector Mark Barratt was in the Supreme Court.

Mr Moncur suggested that Inspector Mark Barrett be made to give notice to the court as to when he would be completed with the higher court. However, the magistrate said it was not a feasible option as the court operated on fixed dates.

Mr Moncur said February 17 would be fair as “by then he (Insp Barrett) must have completed his evidence in Supreme Court”.

Magistrate Delancey said the date was acceptable. She then asked how much time Mr Moncur would require to make his submissions.

“I hope I can be short, but sometimes I am led by the spirit,” Mr Moncur replied.

The magistrate smiled at the remark, replying that while she understood this, her pen could only write so much. Mr Moncur chuckled.

Mr Moncur thanked the magistrate whom he then “respectfully” advised about the wrong impressions the court gave by the length of waiting time he had to endure, although his hearing had been originally scheduled for 2pm.

The magistrate noted his complaint and apologised. She explained that she had sent a message by her staff that the court was only waiting for the prosecutor.

Mr Moncur, who was arraigned on April 4, 2013, faces a single charge of committing a “grossly indecent act.” It is claimed that between March 1 and March 29, he “intentionally and unlawfully” published a photograph of the body of Jamie Smith.

Moncur opted to be tried by a jury in the Supreme Court rather than by a magistrate. He was granted $7,500 bail, which he posted the following day.

He was later told that the Attorney General’s Office had decided to hold a preliminary inquiry in the magistrate’s court.

Corporal Olsen, who sat in on Mr Moncur’s March 30 record of the interview with Inspector Mark Barrett, testified on what he witnessed during the 8.35am interview when Mr Moncur was questioned under caution.

The High-Tech Crime Unit officer claimed that Mr Moncur admitted to posting indecent images on Facebook, but denied breaking into the Rand morgue at Princess Margaret Hospital to get them.

He added that Mr Moncur had declined to give a written statement and did not wish to read over the record of the interview.

Mr Moncur asked the officer if an alibi was offered during the interview, to which the officer said: “You said something like you would not divulge your sources.”

Mr Moncur then suggested to the witness that he told both officers to contact Health Minister Dr Perry Gomez for his alibi.

Officer Noel agreed with the suggestion, but when asked if he had verified the alibi, the officer said: “It’s not my duty.”

He also admitted that his report did not reflect that an alibi had been offered.

Last month, Inspector Barrett gave evidence in magistrate’s court no. 2 of his involvement in the case from his arrest of Mr Moncur to an interview in police custody concerning pictures posted on Facebook.

In cross-examination, it was suggested to the officer that he went against standard practice by arresting him without first having obtained all of the facts, which included the undertaker’s statement.

When Inspector Barrett did reply to the suggestion, the magistrate asked him if he got the statement from the undertaker after arresting Mr Moncur. “Yes, your worship,” he replied.