Thu | Apr 27, 2017

Why case against Guardsman employees was not withdrawn from court

Published:Thursday | June 11, 2015 | 6:46 PMJovan Johnson, Gleaner Writer
Paula Llewellyn ... says her office is duty bound to place all the evidence before the court for it to rule on whether there is a case to answer.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Paula Llewellyn, is defending her office against criticisms that a case involving video evidence contradicting a policeman’s claims should not have made it to the courts.

Last week, the Gun Court freed two employees of Guardsman Armoured Limited after video footage produced in court contradicted claims by the policeman that he was attacked and assaulted at an ATM in Clarendon in 2014.

Since The Gleaner’s report, members of the public have questioned why the prosecution, armed with the footage allowed the case to go ahead.

However, the DPP says her office is duty bound to place all the evidence before the court for it to rule on whether there is a case to answer.

 

DPP Paula Llewellyn

Meanwhile, the DPP says it must be noted that even after the defence made a no case submission, the judge, Sarah Thompson, called on the defence to put forward its case.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor in the case, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Paula Archer Hall, insisted that she could not have decided whether the case goes to trial.

 

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Paula Archer Hall

The Guardsman employees had contended that the policeman was trying to force his way into the ATM while they were servicing the machine.