The lead investigator in the mutiny case brought against prison officer Trevor Browne told Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes today he could not find certain evidence to support the alleged offence with which the accused is charged.
The revelation came from prosecution witness Inspector Victor Brewster who was being grilled in a marathon cross examination by defence counsel Andrew Pilgrim Q.C. in the District ‘D’ Magistrates’ Court at Cane Garden, St Thomas.
Browne, who is currently on suspension from duty, is facing four charges related to inciting mutiny or sedition at Her Majesty’s Prison Dodds, St Philip.
The warder, with more than 35 years’ service under his belt, is charged that between May 1 and May 9, he maliciously endeavoured to seduce fellow officers David Davis, Ophneal Austin, Ellis-Vaughn and Stephenson Trotman from their duties by staging a sickout.
But today, in a tough session of cross-examination, Pilgrim asked Inspector Brewster if he had any other evidence besides the “say so” testimonies of the four complainants to prove that his client committed the offence before the court.
“I tried to get other evidence but couldn’t find any. I tried to get further evidence from the prison register, but these books are not well kept,” declared the Crown witness.
Pressed by the defence attorney, the police investigator told the court he was aware that the prison at Dodds has closed circuit television cameras, but that the video was not available.
Questioned by the senior lawyer what he meant by not being available, the witness replied that the prison authorities said they did not have the evidence from the cameras.
At one point during Pilgrim’s questioning, Inspector Brewster appeared to be irritated and Chief Magistrate Weekes interjected and suggested that he seemed to be quarrelling, referring to the officer’s apparent argumentative response to the attorney.
But Pilgrim was relentless, putting it to the witness that any video evidence of his client in conversation with the complainants could have convicted or acquitted him.
The prosecution witness disagreed.
He explained that the events would have had to be in the cameras’ line of sight.
“They told me there were no cameras in any of the areas when the conversations took place,” added the police inspector. When I checked for the date the incident happened, there was no camera information available for all the days in May,” he stated.
He admitted that he did not investigate whether the video footage was destroyed.
The defense counsel then turned his attention to the arrest warrant and the warrant to search the accused’s home. He spent a significant amount of time on issues surrounding the contents of the warrants, particularly the one to search.
The witness told the court, in answer to a query from Pilgrim, that while the alleged offence occurred in May, he applied for the warrants in November.
Pilgrim asked the police officer what was so special about this case that prompted the police to apply for a warrant to search his client’s house at 4:30 in the morning with guns drawn.
But while denying that guns were drawn, the witness explained that whenever there is a summary offence, “we apply for a warrant of arrest”.
Pilgrim questioned why a team of police from the Major Crimes Unit to which the officer was attached, should turn up at Browne’s residence for a “petty crime”.
“How many of you turned up at Browne’s place at 4.30 in the morning, guns drawn?” Pilgrim asked.
“Two vehicles…but I am not certain,” Inspector Brewster answered.
The prosecution witness also admitted during the cross examination, that the search warrant was to seize the accused’s cellphone to look for possible evidence of incriminating conversation.
However, the police inspector told the court, nothing was found.
“I had information that led me to believe the phone had evidence of the offence, but there was none,” he declared.
By this time, the chief investigator showed some signs of fatigue as he constantly leaned forward, stretched backwards in his chair, removed his glasses and wiped his eyes even as his voice became increasingly softer in his responses to Pilgrim’s persistent questioning.
The defense attorney also sought to discredit the four prison officers on whom the prosecution has relied for its case.
Singling them out, the prominent criminal attorney asked the witness if he was aware that several of the complainants were currently on charges before the law courts, including for theft from the prison.
He said he heard about the stealing but did not know who the prison officer was.
But Pilgrim asked him if he did not think, as chief investigator, that the prison authorities should have told him that the particular complainant was charged with stealing so he could make an assessment as far as credibility was concerned.
“Maybe,” the police officer replied.
Pilgrim also asked if he was aware that some other complainants gave the police statements saying that his client never asked them to sick out on May 8 and 9, 2018.
The senior attorney also referred to a fifth complainant – Makeisha Sandiford – who testified today but was not among the original four prison officers giving evidence.
“Did the prison ask you to interview her…a sworn enemy of Mr Browne?” the defence lawyer asked, while informing the Inspector that Sandiford had given police a statement saying his client did not encourage her to sick out.
“If the statement was in the file I would have read it,” the policeman replied.
Pilgrim pushed further to find out if he was aware of the statements of the five complainants but the police officer’s response was persistently “no”.
Again Magistrate Weekes intervened declaring “I am confused…I am baffled that this witness, the chief investigator is not aware of the contents of the statements of their complainants.”
Towards the end of the cross-examination, the lead investigator agreed with the senior counsel that the police could have found out if the complainants actually went on a sick out.
At the start of his testimony, the police inspector gave a ball-by-ball commentary on what led up to the arrest of the accused starting with a report from Superintendent of Prison John Nurse that Browne had approached Davis, Austin, Ellis-Vaughn and Trotman and maliciously seduced them not to report for work on May 8 and 9, 2018.
The only other witness testifying today was Sandiford who in her brief time on the stand said when she saw the accused in the prison car park back on May, he asked her if she was one of the officers who reported sick.
“I told him I don’t know what he was speaking about,” she stated.
The case was adjourned for a September 2 private case management session. That’s also when a date will be given for the trial to resume.
emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb
