The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Court of Appeal yesterday ordered the retrial of a man who was acquitted of attempting to murder a police officer four years ago after the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the judge’s decision to uphold his no case submission.

In June 2016, two police officers were dispatched to a street in the Pinewood Gardens community. When they arrived, they saw Shannon Wilson and another man standing in the area.

According to court documents, one of the men, who matched the description the police were given, attempted to run away when he noticed the officers. When the officers gave chase, the man turned and aimed a silver and black firearm in the direction of Detective Constable 3569 Kendrick Brown. In response, Officer Brown fired at Wilson and shot him in the back of his left thigh. Wilson was later arrested and charged with attempted murder after Officer Brown identified him as the person he saw and chased, and who pointed the firearm at him.

Wilson’s trial began on May 1, 2019. The defence submitted that there was no case to answer. On May 13, 2019, a Supreme Court judge upheld the no case submission, withdrew the matter from the jury and directed them to return a verdict of “not guilty”.

Three days after the ruling was made, the Director of Public Prosecutions filed an appeal against the judge’s decision on the grounds that it was “erroneous on points of law”.

Yesterday, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Jon Isaacs and Milton Evans granted the DPP’s appeal and remitted the case back to the Supreme Court for a retrial to be heard “on the earliest date that the court’s calendar may afford”.

In their judgment, they noted that the trial judge was “influenced by the fact” that Wilson did not fire the handgun after he pointed it at Officer Brown.

In their ruling the panel stated: “The judge ought to have found that as a matter of law the acts of the respondent were sufficiently proximate to amount to an attempt to murder Constable Brown; and then to have called upon the respondent to lead a defence.

“Additionally, the judge was satisfied that because he determined that the offence of attempted murder had not been made out, and because the firearms offences had not been charged initially, that it was not competent for the alternative firearm offences to be put to the respondent. However, Section 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes provision for such a case. There are no words limiting the generous ambit of sub-section 3 of section 114. As such, the judge should have considered that any lesser offence disclosed on the facts of the case may support a conviction on that lesser offence notwithstanding that the defendant had not been charged with that offence.”

Justice Isaacs said in view of these facts, the panel was “satisfied” that the judge “fell into error” when he ruled that the offence of attempted murder had not been made out on the prosecution’s evidence.

“The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for retrial of the respondent on the charge of attempted murder on the earliest date that court’s calendar may afford,” he stated.