Missing proof

Published: Thursday | August 23, 2012 Comments 0
James Forbes, Senior Superintendent of Police
James Forbes, Senior Superintendent of Police
Senior Superintendent of Police James Forbes (third left) is surrounded by his attorney, Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, and a large support group of law-enforcement colleagues as he walks from the Half-Way Tree Police Station in St Andrew to the nearby resident magistrate's court yesterday to face charges of perverting the course of justice.
Senior Superintendent of Police James Forbes (third left) is surrounded by his attorney, Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, and a large support group of law-enforcement colleagues as he walks from the Half-Way Tree Police Station in St Andrew to the nearby resident magistrate's court yesterday to face charges of perverting the course of justice.
Member of Parliament for West Portland Daryl Vaz (right) is escorted to the Half-Way Tree Resident Magistrate's Court in St Andrew yesterday to answer corruption charges. - Photos by Norman Grindley/Chief Photographer
Member of Parliament for West Portland Daryl Vaz (right) is escorted to the Half-Way Tree Resident Magistrate's Court in St Andrew yesterday to answer corruption charges. - Photos by Norman Grindley/Chief Photographer

Livern Barrett, Gleaner Writer

Senior DPP says 'document' in Forbes' hands has vanished

The attorney for Senior Superintendent of Police James Forbes yesterday refused to discuss claims by prosecutors that a "document" in the possession of the veteran policeman, which is crucial to the criminal case against him, has vanished.

The document in question, Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Dirk Harrison told a judge yesterday, was drafted at a meeting Forbes 'facilitated' at his Oxford Road offices in St Andrew, where arrangements were made to 'absolve the incident' involving businessman Bruce Bicknell.

"That document was given to Mr Forbes, but has not been seen," Harrison told Resident Magistrate Georgina Fraser in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday as he outlined the case against Forbes, Bicknell and parliamentarian Daryl Vaz.

But when contacted, Forbes' attorney, Queen's Counsel Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, said she had no comment on the matter.

Noting that the defence was entitled to full disclosure of all the allegations, Samuels-Brown told reporters after the men's brief court appearance that "it is only when we have those allegations that we will be able to respond to them in detail".

However, when pressed on the serious nature of the charges against her client, she said "allegations are always damning".

"What is required now is for all the issues to be thrashed out in a clinical, calm atmosphere of a courtroom. The allegations will be examined, analysed and we will see where justice lies," she said.

Forbes and Bicknell are charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, while Vaz is charged with breaches of the Corruption Prevention Act.

The men were offered bail in the sum of $250,000 each and have been ordered to surrender their travel documents. Fraser also ordered the men not to have any contact with any of the witnesses in the case and that a stop order be placed on them at the ports.

They are scheduled to return to court on September 5.

Meanwhile, Harrison said the case file was almost complete, except for a statement from Police Commissioner Owen Ellington.

He also noted that the prosecution has in its possession telephone records relevant to the matter.

The case stems from a speeding ticket Bicknell was given by Sergeant of Police Jubert Llewellyn during a traffic stop along the Sir Florizel Glasspole Highway in Kingston on April 9. It is alleged that Bicknell offered Llewellyn $2,000 not to prosecute him for speeding.

Prosecutors have also alleged that Vaz and Forbes intervened to try and influence Llewellyn to drop the charge.

livern.barrett@gleanerjm.com


Share |

The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. Please keep comments short and precise. A maximum of 8 sentences should be the target. Longer responses/comments should be sent to "Letters of the Editor" using the feedback form provided.
blog comments powered by Disqus