THE EDITOR, Sir:
An open letter to the commissioner of police - Part 2
IN RESPONSE To 'Hello, hello, commissioner' published in The Gleaner on Tuesday, March 27, 2012, I got your email that very day not only acknowledging my request to review the police report, but referring it to the senior superintendent of police (SSP) in charge of Area 5 for the "necessary action to be taken".
In keeping with your referral, I visited the SSP the following day (March 28) who held a meeting with me and the investigating constable. The matter was then sent to the officer-in-charge, who instructed me to bring in the eyewitness, as he said that this evidence was crucial to the review of the police report.
travesty of justice
On Saturday, March 31, 2012, the eyewitness gave his affidavit, which included him being threatened at the Petcom service station. The updated file was then submitted to the clerk of courts on May 8, 2012 for her ruling. On Thursday, October 25, 2012, I was told by the officer-in-charge that the clerk of courts ruled that both parties should "seek civil damages". Based on the evidence in the case, I find this judgment a travesty of justice.
This case arose out of an accident that took place on Sunday, May 1, 2011, along the Twickenham Park main road in front of the Petcom service station. Initially, the female driver claimed that I didn't signal early enough that I was turning, causing her to run into my bumper. However, she completely changed that account in her statement to the investigating constable at the Spanish Town Police Station, stating that I overtook her and stopped suddenly on her, forcing her to run into the rear of my Tiida motor car.
Despite my explanation to the constable that her version was an utter fabrication and that I had an eyewitness account to corroborate what actually happened, he told me that based on his years of experience and the findings of his investigation, he found her account to be far more creditable than mine. Thus, he went ahead and completed the police report and also warned me for reckless and dangerous driving. I tried to get the matter settled at the station but only got the run-around, giving me no choice but to appeal to you.
Despite following your instructions, I have failed to obtain justice as my reputation is still in tatters. I would like to know what is being done about the unprofessional behaviour of the investigating officer. Why is the investigating constable trying to take away what is only of value to me: my integrity?
Linton W. Heslop