Is it me, or is the Shazard Mohammed case becoming more and more suspicious daily? Justice has fled under the cover of darkness.
First, the reports were that Shazard and his 2 fellow crew members were fishing at night, when they were accosted on the high seas by an unlighted boat that tried to ram them. They thought that they were being attacked by pirates (and given the amount of piracy, this is not an unreasonable assumption) and so they fled. Then they were chased, boarded, and the as-yet-unidentified boarders got into a tussle with three unarmed men whereupon Shazard was shot, at close range.
The initial reports (when memory would have been clearer) was that only AFTER he was shot, that the perpetrators identified themselves as the Coast Guard. Still, spin changes the stories in favour of the shooter.
Now we find that the Coast Guardsman who was the actual shooter was a mechanic, but more surprisingly he was armed and also in charge of the boat that the Coast Guard was using. This from a statement by the lawyer (Karl Hudson-Phillip) representing the attacker, Quincy Allum.
Now what seems out of whack to me is this:
First, the reports were that Shazard and his 2 fellow crew members were fishing at night, when they were accosted on the high seas by an unlighted boat that tried to ram them. They thought that they were being attacked by pirates (and given the amount of piracy, this is not an unreasonable assumption) and so they fled. Then they were chased, boarded, and the as-yet-unidentified boarders got into a tussle with three unarmed men whereupon Shazard was shot, at close range.
The initial reports (when memory would have been clearer) was that only AFTER he was shot, that the perpetrators identified themselves as the Coast Guard. Still, spin changes the stories in favour of the shooter.
Now we find that the Coast Guardsman who was the actual shooter was a mechanic, but more surprisingly he was armed and also in charge of the boat that the Coast Guard was using. This from a statement by the lawyer (Karl Hudson-Phillip) representing the attacker, Quincy Allum.
Now what seems out of whack to me is this:
- What is a Coast Guard mechanic doing armed and out on sea? Was he in charge of the boat? Why was he not employed in the capacity of his post, i.e. as a mechanic?
- Given the circumstances of the case, how come the DPP took it upon himself to drop the charges against Allum? Isn't it the duty of the jury at a trial to determine guilt or innocence? So is the DPP now the judge, jury and executioner?
- How come we did not have this sort of idiocy in the DPP's office when Mark Mohammed was DPP? We had Henderson being politically leapfrogged over a more senior (and competent) member of staff and now the entire DPP's office is sullied.
Now, these are by no means the only questions that occur to me. I admit, I am no legal expert like Karl Hudson-Phillip, but my views are actually similar to those held by Martin Daly who is.
I am deeply disturbed by the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to discontinue the prosecution of a Coast Guard member ordered to stand trial for the killing of Shazard Mohammed, a fisherman, in an incident which took place at sea.
Apparently the DPP was of the opinion that the evidence from the witnesses strongly suggested that the Coast Guard member shot Mohammed in self-defence. I always thought that from time immemorial, at least since democracy bridled the power of kings, emperors and fathers of nations, the assessment of evidence of witnesses is the function of the Courts where witnesses are seen and heard and tested by cross-examination in an open manner in contrast to a presentation on paper assessed in the clandestine cloisters of legal chambers.
It is also my recollection that this might not be the first time that a member of the protective services has benefited from intervention before due process could take its full course and I am wondering whether we truly do have categories of persons... ...who qualify for favourable treatment by secret processes outside of the courts.
Here are some comments posted on the Express website:
As a former coast guard man the actions of young Allum sounds like it came right out of the training manual for boarding and searching a vessel. I was in that very unit Allum is in but we didn't have 'young sweats' captaining vessels who didn't do no form of promotional training and examination. The young sweat was not suppose to be the senior man on that vessel. This the same coast guard that is rapidly recruiting young men and women and training them to ignore the laws of the land. Also safety and the standing orders of the institution. Case in point their have been four deaths of individuals by the hands or while in direct supervision of the Defence Force since this massive recruiting drive. Two coast Guard men have been brought before the courts and two soilders have died in training exercises. This should make the big wigs revise their intentions instead of trying to go home with the pensions of Admirals.
Mr Hudson-Phillips is a very experienced lawyer, so he shrewdly takes us from a killing to a fatwa which he rightly denounces. Under the cover of darkness the guard barely distinguishes a raising hand with something to strike him and fired two shots at the hulking figure. Mr Hudson-Phillips, in my view, conveniently disregarded how the same guard knew where to stretch his hand to turn off the boat engine in the darkness.
Rightfully or not, it is these situations that cause the people to lose faith in the administration of justice and allow people such as Anand Ramlogan and Panday to shriek to high heavens of racial victimisation, the perpetrators being of one race and the victim, of another.
Some of us may well start thinking it is true.
I am deeply disturbed by the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to discontinue the prosecution of a Coast Guard member ordered to stand trial for the killing of Shazard Mohammed, a fisherman, in an incident which took place at sea.
Apparently the DPP was of the opinion that the evidence from the witnesses strongly suggested that the Coast Guard member shot Mohammed in self-defence. I always thought that from time immemorial, at least since democracy bridled the power of kings, emperors and fathers of nations, the assessment of evidence of witnesses is the function of the Courts where witnesses are seen and heard and tested by cross-examination in an open manner in contrast to a presentation on paper assessed in the clandestine cloisters of legal chambers.
It is also my recollection that this might not be the first time that a member of the protective services has benefited from intervention before due process could take its full course and I am wondering whether we truly do have categories of persons... ...who qualify for favourable treatment by secret processes outside of the courts.
Here are some comments posted on the Express website:
As a former coast guard man the actions of young Allum sounds like it came right out of the training manual for boarding and searching a vessel. I was in that very unit Allum is in but we didn't have 'young sweats' captaining vessels who didn't do no form of promotional training and examination. The young sweat was not suppose to be the senior man on that vessel. This the same coast guard that is rapidly recruiting young men and women and training them to ignore the laws of the land. Also safety and the standing orders of the institution. Case in point their have been four deaths of individuals by the hands or while in direct supervision of the Defence Force since this massive recruiting drive. Two coast Guard men have been brought before the courts and two soilders have died in training exercises. This should make the big wigs revise their intentions instead of trying to go home with the pensions of Admirals.
My personal fear is that the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this case and that of the Chief Magaistrate in the Galene Bonadie matter would convey to some members of the Defence Force and the Protective Services that they have licence to kill civilians, even in circumstances where they are unarmed and pose no real threat to the lives of these officers.
Mr Hudson-Phillips is a very experienced lawyer, so he shrewdly takes us from a killing to a fatwa which he rightly denounces. Under the cover of darkness the guard barely distinguishes a raising hand with something to strike him and fired two shots at the hulking figure. Mr Hudson-Phillips, in my view, conveniently disregarded how the same guard knew where to stretch his hand to turn off the boat engine in the darkness.
Rightfully or not, it is these situations that cause the people to lose faith in the administration of justice and allow people such as Anand Ramlogan and Panday to shriek to high heavens of racial victimisation, the perpetrators being of one race and the victim, of another.
Some of us may well start thinking it is true.
