The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

‘WHAT law did I break?’ was Rodney Moncur’s question yesterday in response 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 - a man whom Moncur claims to be a relative of - who had died in police custody.

After Inspector Mark Barrett’s evidence was be read into the record, Mr Moncur informed the court that he was ready to make his “no case” submissions.

He did so after setting up make-shift poster of the pictures he claimed were not indecent based on the charge the Crown brought against him and the circumstances surrounding how the photos were acquired.

In three of the nine photos visible on the white poster, Mr Moncur is standing next to a deceased body.

Moncur asserts that he was given permission by the family and undertaker to photograph Smith’s body and said if police had done a proper investigation, he would not be before the courts.

Case history

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.

Crown’s evidence

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.

Article complaint

Yesterday, in referring to the investigator’s evidence in cross-examination where Inspector Barrett said that the Commissioner of Police was the virtual complainant in the matter, Mr Moncur inquired how this could be when the family, in Barrett’s own admission, had not lodged any complaint of the photos being posted.

“He (Barrett) accused me of breaking into the Rand Lab at the Princess Margaret Hospital when he knew at all material time that I did not break into the lab,” Moncur said.

“Even if we accepted his lies that I broke in the lab, how then did I steal the photographs?” he asked, pointing to a picture showing himself next to the body.

“If the Commissioner of Police is the virtual complainant, and he (Inspector Barrett) is acting on information, the court can conclude that the COP provided him with this bogus, lying information,” Moncur further submitted.

“And your worship, for a police officer to know you did not commit a crime, yet accuse you of a crime, that’s gangsterism. That’s not acting in accordance with the law. The police is not supposed to lie on me and arrest me.”

Moncur said he does not deny the photos being posted, but said he took the photos at the undertaker’s establishment.

“That is where those photographs were taken. They were never taken at the Princess Margaret Hospital. They were never taken at the Rand Lab. I did not steal those photographs,” he said, adding that he got permission from the family.

Moncur then addressed the particulars of the alleged offence, which law lists as a misdemeanor if convicted of committing the grossly indecent act in public or where the public is able to see said act.

He said the charge, to the minds of the average person and in the country’s own law books, depicts as a sexual act being committed even though it was not the case in this matter as none of the photos he published exposed Smith’s private parts.

Moncur said that while some would consider the pictures disturbing or gruesome, they could not be categorised by definition or by law, as indecent.

Moncur claimed the charge was part of the police’s campaign to slander him in the public domain which he said became further evident in a news editorial ran in one of the local dailies days after he was arraigned in Magistrates Court.

Referring to journalist Juan McCartney’s article “A Misguided Cruisade: What war is Rodney Moncur’s army of one fighting?”, published in the April 8, 2013 edition of The Nassau Guardian, Mr Moncur said the article portrayed him as “a crazy man”.

He said the article was an “honest attempt” to influence potential jurors for his case that was initially set to go to the Supreme Court but changed at the last minute.

Moncur admits that some in the public domain and as highlighted by said article, disagree with some of his beliefs, “but why is he trying to poison the jury pool?”

Mr Moncur also submitted that the journalist, who reported that the family of Smith had not given consent for the photos to be published, should have come to court to give this evidence because “you heard Mr Barrett said no family lodged a complaint”.

He ultimately called the article “contemptous and outrageous” and claimed the police could be blamed because of their attempt to slander him.

Mr Moncur concluded that the Crown had not proved that he committed the charges.

Magistrate Constance Delaney is now set to determine whether there is evidence for the case to be forwarded to Supreme Court.