Isaac (left) and RamsayBy Omar Anderson, Staff Reporter
THE WEST Kingston Commission of Enquiry yesterday turned down an application from lawyers for the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) to have the counsels for the Public Defender's office barred from further participation in the enquiry.
Following heated exchanges between attorney-at-law Earl Witter, one of the two lawyers for the Public Defender, and attorneys-at-law Ian Ramsay Q.C., and Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, both of whom represent the police, Justice Julius Isaac ruled against the application.
"We have concluded that the Public Defender and you and Mr. (Dennis) Daly do have status as participants to continue with your cross-examination and deal with matters before this Commission," Mr. Isaac told Mr. Witter.
Mr. Witter was cross-examining police constable Fazel Lee of the Mobile Reserve, when Mrs. Samuels-Brown made the application, which was supported by Mr. Ramsay.
According to Justice Isaac, the Commission was of the opinion that the lawyers representing the office of the Public Defender were making a significant contribution to the Enquiry and it was on that basis they should continue.
Mr. Ramsay and Mrs. Samuel-Brown objected to Mr. Witter's questioning of Constable Lee. The policeman was shot and injured during the July 7-10 West Kingston gun battle,. He was examined and partially cross-examined on December 3, this year but, in the absence of Mr. Witter and Dennis Daly, the other lawyer for the Public Defender, who had other court duties.
Things heated up when Mr. Witter, in cross-examining Lee, asked him whether the reported finding of a gun during the cordon and search operation by the security forces was important to him. Constable Lee acknowledged that he did not mention in his statement that the .22 pistol was found because, on the day in question, he was only concerned with forming a cordon to facilitate a search team.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown objected, saying Mr. Witter should not be allowed to continue cross-examining witnesses, because he and Mr. Daly would be acting contrary to the Terms of Reference of the Commission. She said that the Terms state that a person/organisation can participate in the proceedings only if that person or organisation obtains a statement which is brought to the Commission.
Commission's Counsel Velma Hylton jumped to her feet, arguing that lawyers representing the office of the Public Defender will continue as participants, until when the Public Defender tells her he doesn't have any more interest in the Enquiry.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown replied that she was merely pointing to the Terms of Reference of the Enquiry.
"These persons (civilian witnesses) have gone by the wayside and it is my right to raise the matter," she said. "It's a matter which arises on the very procedures set up."
Attorney-at-law Linton Gordon, one of the lawyers representing the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF), said that the lawyers representing the office of the Public Defender should be allowed to continue participating, as the Public Defender was a recognised public institution.
Mr. Witter later took a swipe at Mrs. Samuels-Brown for questioning his legitimacy at the enquiry.
"I regard Mrs. Samuels-Brown remarks as presumptuous to the extreme and quite improper. She has no right and can take no privilege to be looking beyond my brief. It is not in her place to interpret my instructions or how I might carry them out," he said.
According to Mr. Witter, his cross-examination was in the proper discharge of his instructions and, on that basis, he had the right to continue cross-examining Constable Lee without Mrs. Samuels-Brown's interruptions.
Mr. Ramsay then questioned the relevance and direction of Mr. Witter's cross-examination of Lee and described him as "a loose canon." Mr. Witter said that he was testing Lee's credibility against what he had written in his statement.
"I have never understood the Commission to be uninterested in the credibility of the witnesses who testify and to the veracity of the accounts of events which they give," he told the Commission.
Justice Isaac said that the Commission was indeed interested in determining the witnesses' credibility, but that the matter in question had not been referred to in evidence, only in Lee's statement.
According to Justice Isaac, some of the questions Mr. Witter were asking were already answered in examination. At this juncture, Mr. Ramsay submitted that Mr. Witter must not be given unlimited privilege to continue cross-examining witnesses.
Mr. Witter: I have come here with no case, for this is not a trial. I have taken up no adversarial position. I seek to assist the Commission in carrying out a full and faithful and impartial enquiry.
Earlier this month, civilian witnesses who had given statements to the Public Defender, appeared before the Enquiry with their own lawyers and refused to testify, citing fear of reprisal from members of the security forces.
The Commission resumes on January 7.
