Veteran detective pressed on statements, procedure in Clansman Gang trial

A 22-year veteran policeman, formerly assigned to the now disbanded Counter Terrorism and Organised Crime (CTOC) Branch, was closely cross-examined yesterday in the ongoing Clansman Gang trial, where alleged gang leader Tesha Miller and 24 others are charged under the anti-gang legislation.

The detective inspector, now assigned to the Specialised Investigations Branch (SIB), told the court that on September 26, 2018, he led an intelligence-driven operation in the Cross Roads area, targeting what police believed would be a robbery.

He described the day in question as "bright and sunny" as members of his team saturated the vicinity near the post office, uncertain who would carry out the crime.

According to the officer, police observed a man at the location whom he said had been previously profiled in connection with robberies.

The man was walking with another man but, when the former saw him, he immediately turned around but was later intercepted.

A motor vehicle parked at the taxi stand was also stopped, and its driver taken into custody. All three men were detained.

A fourth man, the officer said, was taken into custody sometime after.

The detective told prosecutors that none of the men were armed when searched and none was charged on the day of the operation.

However, he said statements were recorded from them for “intelligence purposes” based on “utterances” they allegedly made while at the location.

During his evidence in chief, he said he instructed a female member of the team to record the statements.

“I had no evidence to prove or disprove their involvement,” the officer admitted, explaining that the statements were placed in a file jacket and stored in a drawer until he later received a request from another policeman.

Under cross-examination by defence attorney John Clarke, the veteran officer faced sustained questioning about record-keeping and police procedure.

He agreed the September 26 operation was planned and that a briefing was conducted at the CTOC base, where he said he was one of the officers in charge.

However, when pressed, he admitted he could not recall the exact date he handed over the file containing the statements, nor had he recorded that date anywhere.

He also said he could not remember the exact date the men were released from custody.

The court was briefly adjourned to allow the witness to retrieve the file jacket at his office after Clarke demanded specifics.

When proceedings resumed, the officer said the statement from one of the men had been taken on October 2, 2018, six days after the September 26 operation.

Clarke reminded him that the men had been detained on September 26.

The officer reaffirmed that he was part of the initial team that took him into custody.

Asked whether he was the one who caused the men to be detained, the inspector replied 'No' and said he could not recall who made that decision.

Clarke suggested the men had been taken into custody on suspicion of robbery.

“Initially, I would agree,” the officer responded, later clarifying that the men were brought into custody in relation to the operation he led.

The defence further established that after the men gave statements in relation to September 26, they were not charged, a point the officer conceded, saying, “Not to my knowledge.”

Clarke then drilled into the nature of the statements recorded.

Asked to explain the difference between a caution statement and a witness statement, the detective said a caution statement taken from a suspect must be witnessed by a justice of the peace or an attorney.

In contrast, a witness statement is not usually required to be witnessed by a lawyer or justice of the peace.

He reiterated to the court that he was not present when the statements were recorded and could not say if the men's rights were violated.

Clarke also put it to the officer that no offence had been committed at the scene.

The inspector agreed that none of the men was found armed and no offence was committed in the officers’ presence.

However, he maintained that, based on utterances made at the location, the men were brought into custody.

"Where are those utterances?” Clarke asked.

“I believe the utterances were in the statements recorded from them,” the officer responded, adding that he had sight of the statements after they were taken.

Further questioning probed at what stage the decision was made to formally detain the men and on what legal basis, as the defence continued its attempt to test the reliability and procedural integrity of the operation.

The detective inspector is expected to return to the witness stand when the trial resumes at 10 a.m. today.

andre.williams@gleanerjm.com