A defence attorney on Tuesday accused the army of a conspiracy to target his client, after the top brass charged him with leaving duty without reasonable excuse – only one of three offences so far read to him at a court martial.
It was day two in which the hearing in Hodgson Hall of the Barbados Defence Force’s St Ann’s headquarters continued with submissions from Michael Lashley QC, statements from his client, Private Raheem Reeves, and supporting evidence from military witnesses.
In another presentation on behalf of Private Reeves who from the opening day has sought the removal of two members of the sitting panel and one from the alternate panel for fear they could prejudice his case, an animated Lashley suggested that a conspiracy was evident from the way in which his client had been treated by certain senior officers.
The Queen’s Counsel raised concerns that Private Reeves could be victimized by the panel hearing the case, simply because he dared challenge the likely bias which the defence believes could come from president of the court Lieutenant Commander John Mapp and Sub-Lieutenant Alexander Kellman, along with Sub-Lieutenant Jamal Wiggins, a panelist-in-waiting.
“We hope they would not punish our client because we seek to challenge the bias against my client,” said Lashley. “I don’t have any faith that my client would have a fair trial in these proceedings.”
Despite statements from the QC, his client and military witnesses Tori Quintyne and Stephan Murray, the court dismissed the objections and in the absence of two of the three named panelists, unanimously decided that the officers were fit and proper to try the case against Private Reeves.
On Monday, the court had already settled the challenge against the president who was also retained on similar grounds.
As a result, the entire panel was officially sworn in Tuesday in preparation to begin the trial Wednesday.
But the proceedings were not without its moments of drama as Lashley and Judge Advocate Krystal Delaney became entangled in a legal exchange over his line of questioning regarding the treatment meted out to a witness and his client, while they were in police custody in Speightstown as part of investigations into an unrelated matter of a missing soldier.
Quintyne told the court that normally when a soldier is in police custody, senior officers were expected to visit them and conduct welfare checks to ascertain their personal well-being. But he said none was done during the 10 days he, Reeves and Murray spent in a cell in Speightstown.
But Judge Advocate Delaney interjected to instruct Lashley to move on because the treatment of the soldiers with respect to a matter that was not before the court for consideration was irrelevant.
The senior counsel responded by telling her the treatment of his client spoke to fairness.
“It is not relevant to what we have to decide right now. You can move on from that question,” the Judge Advocate ruled.
“I am not moving on. It is relevant. It is about fairness,” the QC retorted.
Delaney insisted that the question, on which she had already ruled, was not relevant regarding the soldiers’ complaints and what was done.
“I object to your ruling,” the QC declared.
He eventually gave in to the Judge Advocate and agreed to allow his final witness, Stephan Murray, to make a statement in support of their objection rather than question him as he did with Quintyne.
Murray’s testimony was similar in nature to that of his colleague Quintyne.
In response to the witnesses, Prosecutor Captain Neville Corbin told the court that none of them had presented any evidence to show that the panel was partial or biased.
Captain Corbin contended that all members of the BDF are aware of provisions under the Defence Force Act which allow for individuals to take advantage of “redress complaints” service.
But he said none of them had brought any such complaints to the administration of the Force.
After being retained to the panel, Wiggins and Kellman rejected accusations of being biased.
The trial is scheduled to begin in earnest on Wednesday. (EJ)
