The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A JUDGE yesterday partially allowed the appeal of two police officers who could still face prosecution in connection with the death of Aaron Rolle while in police custody.

The concession Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs granted to Police Constables 2126 Akiel Smith and 2648 Carl Smith was that there was a fundamental misdirection to a Coroner’s Court jury during an inquest, where the jury’s finding that the 20-year-old’s death was an “unlawful” killing was not a verdict, in law, available to the panel at the time of the proceedings.

However, Senior Justice Isaacs maintained that “in my judgment, the blunt force trauma to the torso of the deceased was the immediate cause of death”.

“Aaron Rolle died of a perforated jejunum (ruptured intestine) and mesenteric haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen which caused two litres of intestinal fluid to leak into his abdominal cavity as stated by Dr (Caryn) Sands,” the judge’s written ruling stated.

“She also stated that at the time of her report, the toxicologic analysis was still pending, so it was indeterminate whether any other ailment contributed to his death. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.”

“The findings of the Coroner’s Court are set aside and the following findings are substituted that appear justified by the evidence pursuant to Section 36(5)(b) of the Act; the deceased was Aaron Rolle, the deceased came to his death due to a perforated jejunum and mesenteric haemorrhage, the deceased came to his death on February 9, 2013, between 5am and 7am, the deceased came to his death in cell three at the Quakoo Street Police Station, the means by which the deceased came to his death was blunt force trauma.”

The decision to prosecute, at this stage, lies with the Office of the Attorney General.

At an appeal hearing on July 1, Crown respondent Ambrose Armbrister told the judge that the Crown had conceded the “fundamental error” ground raised by the police officers’ lawyers Lennox Coleby and Wellington Olander.

Up until last year’s amendment of the Coroner’s Court Act, the option of an unlawful killing was not available to a jury at an inquest.

And the coroner could only make a recommendation to a higher court on whether or not a case should be criminally pursued as opposed to outright ruling on whether a death was a homicide and/or whether there should be criminal or civil liability.

And while Mr Armbrister had disagreed with Mr Coleby’s suggestion that the verdict be substituted with the finding that Rolle’s death be determined as a result of illness, he said the alternative of ordering a new inquest presented a challenge.

Mr Armbrister also explained that even with the recent amendment to the Coroner’s Court Act, and a possible finding that the individuals be committed to stand trial, certain evidence allowed at the inquest may be deemed inadmissible at the Supreme Court.

Hearsay evidence, he noted, is allowed at inquest proceedings but would not be permitted in the Supreme Court in accordance with The Evidence Act.

The prosecutor said it was an anomaly that Parliament should rectify soon.