Military court hears case against soldier

Queen’s Counsel Michael Lashley failed in his bid to prevent one of the prosecution’s main witnesses from taking the stand when the court martial of Ordinary Seaman Raheem Reeves continued this morning at the Barbados Defence Force’s St Ann Fort headquarters.

Reeves is facing the tribunal on two counts of Neglect to the Prejudice of Good Order and Military Discipline. The army has charged that he neglected to carry out his duty as a Shore Police at HMBS Pelican on August 25, 2020, when he failed to inform his superiors that Ordinary Seaman Collymore asked him to contact his parents. Furthermore, it is alleged that while at HMBS Pelican on the same date he neglected to carry out his duty as Shore Police when Ordinary Seaman Collymore admitted to him that he was involved in a serious incident.

The matter is being heard by a panel comprising President Major Alfred Taylor, Captain Michael Jules and Captain Patrice Cummins.

Lashley had sought to have the evidence of police sergeant Carlos Hall ruled inadmissible on the grounds that Reeves’ constitutional rights were violated when he was not advised of his rights to an attorney before he was interviewed by Hall at the District ‘E’ Police Station on August 30, 2020.

He also contended that Hall should have video recorded the interview as required by the Evidence Act.

However, prosecutor Captain Neville Corbin rejected those claims, saying that Reeves was being interviewed by police in connection with the disappearance of the now deceased Coast Guard officer David Thompson.

Corbin argued that Reeves had not committed any offence and was merely being questioned. He maintained Reeves was not questioned in connection with any offence and therefore, did not need to be cautioned by the officer.

Additionally, the prosecutor said he was being interviewed as a Shore Police and under military law an attorney-at-law was not necessary.

After breaking for 20 minutes to make a decision, Judge Advocate Senior Crown Counsel Krystal Delaney ruled that Sergeant Hall’s evidence would be allowed.

She said under the Evidence Act video recordings were only necessary in investigations into certain offences. She maintained Reeves’ investigation didn’t fall into any of those categories.

Delaney further insisted Sergeant Hall had not breached the Judges Rules by not affording Reeves the opportunity to have a lawyer present.

She said the law allowed for interviews to be done at the enquiry stage of an investigation and that it did not reach a stage where the Judges Rule was necessary, hence there was no need for Reeves to be cautioned.

The Crown Counsel also ruled that Reeves’ constitutional rights had not been breached as there had been no signs that police had deliberately frustrated his rights.

She said the statement recorded by the accused in relation to the missing soldier did not incriminate him and there was also nothing to suggest the circumstances adversely affected the truth of the statement.

Moments later, Sergeant Hall took the witness stand and testified that he interviewed Reeves in connection with Thompson’s disappearance.

In that statement which was signed by Reeves, he admitted contacting Collymore’s parents and telling them he was under close arrest. He also advised them to get a lawyer.
(randybennett@barbadostoday.bb)