HORTENSE STEWART, one of the two customs officers freed yesterday by the Court of Appeal of their $1 million fine and 12-month prison sentences, wept outside the courtroom as she recounted the hardships she suffered since she was convicted in 1998 of cocaine charges.
Stewart and Clovis Murdock, of the St. Ann's Bay Customs Department, were arrested in February, 1995 and charged with possession of 8.4 kilogrammes of cocaine and dealing in cocaine.
They were each sentenced, in June, 1996 to $500,000 or six months imprisonment for possession of cocaine and $500,000, or six months imprisonment for dealing in cocaine. In addition to the fines, they were each sentenced to 12 months imprisonment at hard labour.
The Crown led evidence in the Ocho Rios Resident Magistrate's Court, St. Ann, that on June 2, 1995, there was an arrangement for cocaine to be handed over to Kenneth Richards, an employee of the Carnival Cruise Line which was docked at the Ocho Rios Pier. On June 9, 1995, Stewart and Murdock boarded the vessel and Murdock instructed Stewart to hand over the cocaine to Richards. Stewart then took out the packages and handed them to Richards. Richards informed the security officer on the vessel and the police were called in. Investigations led to the arrests of the customs officers and Richards.
Richards was released from custody several days after his arrest and he was the main witness for the Crown.
RIDDLED WITH CONTRADICTIONS
Attorney-at-law Leroy Equiano, who represented the two customs officers on appeal, submitted that the Crown's case was riddled with contradictions and inconsistences and, as a result, Stewart and Murdock should be freed. He also pointed out that Richards was an accomplice and no other evidence was led to support Richard's testimony.
The Court of Appeal comprising Mr. Justice Henderson Downer, Mr. Justice Seymour Panton and Mr. Justice Howard Cooke upheld the submissions and praised Mr. Equiano for doing "a commendable job". The court, in quashing the convictions and setting aside the prison sentences, said that there was insufficient cogent evidence on which a guilty verdict could have been returned. The court has promised to put its reasons in writing at a later date.
