The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge declined to accept as evidence a man’s alleged confession to armed robbery after the 19-year-old claimed police beat him on his buttocks with a cutlass, put a fish bag over his head, poured hot sauce in his eyes and forced him to confess to the crime.

Because the confession was the Crown’s only evidence, the prosecution submitted a nolle prosequi in the case after Justice Gregory Hilton ruled that it did not fulfil its burden to prove that the confessions were obtained willingly and not under oppression.

Javis Smith testified that his first interview was given voluntarily and without force on October 31, 2018, the day he was arrested. He denied knowledge or participation in the armed robbery incident.

 According to Justice Hilton’s judgement, he testified that his other interviews involved oppression because he was beaten with a cutlass and had a fish bag placed over his head “which almost suffocated him”.

 In court, he urged the judge not to accept the records of the interview and confession he gave on November 1, 2018, and November 4, 2018, because Cpl Walkes and other police officers abused him. He alleged he was beaten on multiple days with a cutlass.

 “He said he confessed to something he did not do because of being beaten and threatened that he would be beaten again if he did not admit to the offence,” Justice Hilton wrote.

 “He testified that he was never picked out on an identification parade, nor did he show the police anything that they said was stolen in the robbery.”

 “Under cross-examination, he maintained that he was beaten by the police with a cutlass to his buttocks and fish bagged. He also said that officers held him down and put hot sauce in his eyes.”

“He stated that he slept two nights in Central Detective Unit because of being beaten and that no other police station would accept him while he was in custody.”

 A doctor who examined Mr Smith on November 8, 2018, found no signs of injury, though he noted that various factors could affect whether there are visible signs of injury, including someone’s skin complexion and the number of days between when they were beaten and examined.

 Justice Hilton identified several concerns.

 “After having considered the evidence of the Crown,” he wrote, “I am concerned that there was no satisfactory explanation for the accused who was arrested and interviewed on 31 October 2018 and 1st November 2018 not to be taken to court until 5th November 2018, particularly as there was what purports to be a full confession by the accused on 1st November 2018.”

“What is the reason for the accused being kept in custody for that length of time? I am considering this in the context of the accused’s allegation that he was being beaten with a cutlass to his buttocks, and being kept in custody for the length of time would lessen any visible signs of injury.”

 Justice Hilton also alluded to a Privy Council ruling last year where the appellate judges expressed “deep concern” after finding that a man was languishing in prison for over 12 years based on a confession that should not have been admitted as evidence. The Privy Council highlighted the improbability that an appellant would voluntarily confess, without a lawyer, to several crimes absent independent evidence.

 Justice Hilton wrote: “In addition to the fact that in the present case, the accused was subjected to interviews on four separate offences within the space of eight hours and voluntarily confessed to all of them without a lawyer and without being confronted with any independent evidence, there is the fact that for the present offence, he has made a complete denial less than twenty-four hours earlier in a Record of Interview conducted by Cpl. Walkes, without any reason proffered by the police for him to make a full confession the next day.

 “It is inherently improbable that the subsequent records of interview and statement could be obtained in circumstances that were not oppressive.”

Attorney David Cash represented Mr Smith in the case.