‘I would not conspire with INDECOM’

Agriculture Minister Floyd Green yesterday firmly rejected claims that he conspired with the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) “to convict” the six police personnel implicated in a 2013 fatal shooting.

Green, a key prosecution witness, was cross-examined by defence attorney Hugh Wildman, who suggested that the parliamentarian was not present, had concocted a story about the six policemen, and was also involved in a conspiracy with INDECOM, the agency which investigated the matter and is responsible for investigating fatal shootings by the security forces.

“I am suggesting to you, sir, that this case here is a conspiracy between you and INDECOM to ‘convict’ these innocent police officers,” Wildman said.

“There is absolutely no way I would conspire with anybody. I would not conspire with INDECOM,” Green told the court. “Why would I? It makes no sense, especially now being a government member.

“It is illogical. I told you already, you are going down the wrong road,” he added.

The policemen, Sergeant Simroy Mott, Corporal Donovan Fullerton, and Constables Andrew Smith, Sheldon Richards, Orandy Rose and Richard Lynch, are on trial for the January 12, 2013 fatal shooting of Matthew Lee, Mark Allen and Ucliffe Dyer along Acadia Drive in St Andrew.

Wildman drew a biblical analogy, suggesting the case mirrored the conspiracy to convict Jesus Christ, before suggesting to Green that he was involved in a similar conspiracy and was not even present.

Green, in dismissing the claim outright, insisted that he did not know any of the accused policemen and therefore could not have conspired against them.

“I do not know the officers, anyone of them, not even one,” he said. “There can be no conspiracy against unknown persons.”

Green also denied concocting a story.

During the proceedings, Wildman sought to link Green’s resignation from the Cabinet in 2021, following a controversial hotel gathering during COVID-19 restrictions, to what he described as “curry favour” treatment by the director of public prosecutions (DPP).

Wildman suggested to Green that, although a file was sent to the DPP in relation to the alleged COVID-19 breach, no charges were brought because of the former DPP’s continuation in office and her alleged protection of Green.

Before answering, Green said, “Come on, Mr Wildman, do better.”

However, the lawyer persisted with his question despite an objection from lead prosecutor Kathy Ann Pike.

Green forcefully rejected the suggestion, describing it as false, misguided, illogical and nonsensical.

“There was no basis upon which to prosecute, but I did what I think was the honourable thing and resigned at the time,” Green told the court, insisting that he had violated no COVID law and that even though he was allowed to move on no-movement day, his actions amounted to him not being in adherence with the thinking and position of the prime minister at the time.

Pike objected to the questioning, contending that Wildman was straying into irrelevant territory.

Wildman, however, argued that the line of questioning was permissible as it went directly to Green’s integrity, credibility and potential bias, citing legal authorities on the scope of cross-examination.

Justice Sonia Bertram Linton allowed limited questioning, but cautioned Wildman to properly frame his suggestions and maintain courtroom decorum.

Wildman also challenged Green on his recollection of the actual date of the incident.

Green had testified that the date of the incident was on a Sunday and that he recalled spending the entire day at home.

However, Wildman, while pointing out that the date was in fact a Saturday, challenged Green on whether he accepted that the date was material and that his error had serious implications.

Green rejected the suggestion, insisting that while he could not recall the specific day of the week, what mattered was where he was at the time and what he observed.

He maintained that his inability to distinguish between Saturday and Sunday did not affect the reliability of his evidence.

“What is important is that I was home, and I saw what I saw,” he said. “Whether it was Saturday or Sunday is not of paramount importance.”

But during that line of questioning, Wildman told Green, “ Your mendacity is egregious.”

Asked further whether he had written the day in his letter, Green said he could not recall whether he had written the actual date or ‘yesterday’, after explaining that he had written the letter a day after the incident.

However, when pressed further, he said he believed he would have written the date, which prompted a remark from Wildman, who said, “ Your mendacity is unbelievable.”

“ I don’t know why you feel the need to say that,” Green replied.

Wildman also raised the issue of Green’s eyesight, questioning whether his vision on the day of the incident was sufficient to allow him to observe what he claimed to have seen accurately.

Green responded that although he required visual correction, he was wearing contact lenses at the time and maintained that he could see movements around the vehicle, even if he could not make out detailed features.

Wildman again challenged Green over the four-year delay in giving a formal statement to INDECOM, suggesting that his later status influenced his eventual cooperation as a government minister and the protections that came with it.

Green, in response, acknowledged that when he gave his statement, he was more secure in his daily life as he had a close protection officer.

In his defence, he further told the court that he initially wrote an anonymous letter to INDECOM shortly after the incident because he feared involvement, but believed he had fulfilled his civic duty at the time.

He said INDECOM later contacted him, at which point he decided to formally identify himself and give a statement.

“That would not have been the easier course,” Green said, adding that denying authorship of the letter and remaining silent would have spared him from having his integrity questioned and facing questions in court.

The trial continues today.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com