K. Churchill Neita, Contributor
THERE HAS been much publicity both in the electronic and print media in relation to the Janice Allen case, the 13 year old girl who was shot and killed on April 14, 2000 on Third Street, Rema.
As I was the lawyer who represented the accused, Rohan Allen, at the trial in Portland, I thought I would take this opportunity to outline the circumstances that gave rise to the matter being disposed of in the way it was. I do this because I have observed that a lot of selective representation has taken place in relation to what actually happened, which to my mind has succeeded in distorting the truth.
In fact, many of the reports have sought to hang on a gibbet, the Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and indeed the Crown Counsel who prosecuted the matter. I must say that I have no hesitation in asserting that the Crown Counsel is a person of unquestionable integrity, balance fairness and undoubted experience and competence who would never attempt to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This is not a panegyric but merely an honest and accurate assessment of a man who has served and continues to serve this country well as a prosecutor of the finest quality.
THE FACTS
The facts are as follows: A Preliminary Enquiry was held at Half-Way Tree on May 17, 2001 as a result of a ruling by the Director of Public Prosecutions that Rohan Allen be charged with murder. The Prosecution called as its main Witness, the sister of the deceased, Ann Marie Allen, who purported to be an eyewitness to the incident. In fact, she was the only eyewitness called by the Crown. Ann Marie, in short, said that she was on Third Street with her sister, Janice, when she saw a number of policemen who were involved apparently in a shoot out. She said further that her sister who was beside her ran and while running across the road, a policeman fired one shot in her sister's direction.
In all the discussions that have taken place, nobody has mentioned the fact that there were fundamental discrepancies between what she said in her statement and what she said at the preliminary enquiry. Notably, among which was the discrepancy in the description of the policeman who allegedly fired at Janice Allen and the accused.
The prosecution's main problem, however, was the absence of the Firearm Diary. The Firearm Diary is the document in which was recorded the serial number of the guns that were issued to the police party. That document had been destroyed as a result of a fire caused by lawless citizens who had attacked the police force and set fire to a part of the Station where the records were kept. In consequence of this, the Prosecution could not establish a nexus between the gun that was issued to Constable Allen and the bullet that was recovered from Janice Allen's body.
Heavy weather has been made about the fact that the Crown Counsel mentioned in his opening that the investigating police officer was not in the island at the time of trial. What the Crown Counsel said was that the police officer was off the island, and that he had been informed by reliable source that the he was not returning. I am sure that the Crown Counsel would not deliberately mislead the Court and I want to point out that it was not Sergeant Dunchie, the arresting officer who issued the firearm and made the entry in the firearms register.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is noteworthy that not many of the reports indeed, if any, have mentioned the fact that a man was shot, and a firearm recovered from his person and this person who was injured was taken by police officers to the hospital and was subsequently arrested and charged for shooting with intent and illegal possession of a firearm. In addition to this, nobody has mentioned the fact that there is a statement on the file that gives an entirely different account as to how the incident occurred.
I want to make it abundantly clear that we should not treat lightly the loss of human life but on the other hand, we must look fairly impartially and objectively at each case and not allow emotions to warp our vision and cloud our judgement. If we do, we run the risk of doing a greater wrong by punishing the innocent.
For my own part, I find it difficult to believe that a police officer on operation to apprehend gunmen would point a gun at a young 13-year-old girl and shoot her down. Then to exacerbate matters, not take her to the hospital for medical treatment but take the man who allegedly opened fire at them and from whom a gun was allegedly recovered. If defies the basic principles of common sense and reason.
Remember, as Justinian said, "Justice is giving every man his due". I feel that had the matter gone to trial in all the circumstances of this case, the accused would have been exonerated. Let us be careful how we attack those who are indispensable to the protection of our society and the dispensation of justice in our every day lives.
K. Churchill Neita, Q.C. is an attorney-at-law.
