By Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterA TRIAL judge's error resulted Monday in the Court of Appeal freeing Kirk Phipps, 31, labourer of Port Antonio, Portland who was serving a 10-year prison sentence for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
The court found that Miss Justice Kay Beckford erred when she said it was not within her purview to consider how or by whom Phipps was shot.
Phipps was arrested and charged by the police after they carried out a search at his home on March 15, 2002 and allegedly found a gun in the ceiling of an abandoned shop adjoining his house.
The police said at the trial that Phipps ran when they were in the process of removing the gun. Phipps was shot in the foot and taken to hospital.
Phipps had said in his defence that the policemen searched his house and found some ganja. He said the policemen began to beat him and during the beating he ran away. While he was running he was shot in the foot.The medical evidence supported the defence that Phipps was beaten.
UNREASONABLE CONVICTIONS
Attorney-at-law Janet Nos-worthy who represented Phipps on appeal, argued yesterday that the convictions were unreasonable having regard to the evidence. She submitted that Phipps was shot while he was running from the police who were beating him. She pointed out that the police had denied beating Phipps. She said the judge did not take into consideration the injuries Phipps suffered although the doctor's evidence confirmed that Phipps was in fact beaten.
Miss Justice Beckford, in convicting Phipps on November 29, 2001, had said that it was not within her purview to ascertain how Phipps was shot and by whom.
The Court of Appeal comprising Mr. Justice Donald Bingham, Mr. Justice Seymour Panton and Mr. Justice Howard Cooke (acting) disagreed with the judge.
"We can't form the view that it is not within our purview as to how the injuries were sustained," the court said. The Justices also held that the injuries were part and parcel of the case.
BEATING TOOK PLACE
The court pointed out that the police witnesses had denied beating Phipps, and said that if the beating took place then the judge could not divorce her mind from it.
It was the court's finding that the police were lying in respect to the beating, therefore one could not say that they were not lying in relation to the material aspect of the case.
