0

Witness Accused Of Perjury

A MAN who claimed he saw three men shooting at a policeman, who was on the ground outside Club Rock in March 1999, was accused of perjury yesterday.

However, Justice Roy Jones, the presiding judge in the Constable Jimmy Ambrose murder retrial told lawyer Ian Cargill that the matter would be dealt with at a later stage.

Cargill, counsel for Andrew Davis, asked the judge to have perjury charges brought against the

prosecution witness who, he said, lied about not having surgery done on his eyes while he was in prison in 1999.

The witness, whose name is being withheld for his protection, was continuing his cross-examination yesterday under Romona Farquharson-Seymour who represents Clint Evans, the second of three defendants concerning the March 29, 1999 murder of Jimmy Ambrose.

Mrs Farquharson-Seymour made a number of suggestions to the witness regarding his eyes in October 1999 when the witness admitted that he had been given prescription drugs and in November of that year was admitted to Princess Margaret Hospital.

“When you were questioned yesterday, you said ‘no,’” Mrs Farquharson-Seymour suggested to the witness.

“I didn’t say no,” the witness answered.

Seymour suggested the witness was deliberately lying to the court. Mr Cargill also expressed his opinion about the answer of the witness.

“Your Lordship, I ask for perjury charges to be brought against this witness as he is lying in the face of this court,” the lawyer said.

Justice Jones said he would make a note of the request and for it to be dealt with at a later stage, but wished for the trial to continue.

Davis, Evans and Stephen Stubbs looked on from the prisoner’s dock as the key witness continued his testimony.

Charges

The accused men each face a charge of murder and attempted murder in connection with the March 29, 1999, shooting death of Constable Ambrose.

Evans is separately charged with two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to put another in fear.

It is claimed that the three accused, on the day in question, murdered Constable Jimmy Ambrose and attempted to kill Constable Marcian Scott.

It is also alleged that Evans possessed a firearm with intent to put Constables Frank Burrows and Calvin Robinson in fear for their lives.

All three men denied the charges and pleaded not guilty when formally arraigned at the opening of the retrial.

Stubbs is represented by Murrio Ducille and Jerone Roberts while Davis and Evans are represented by Ian Cargill and Romona Farquharson-Seymour respectively.

Key Witness’ Evidence

On Monday, the prosecution witness said on the early morning of March 29, 1999, clubgoers ran when shots were fired. He said the men he saw leaving the nightclub had made threats before opening fire at a policeman and two other men.

He said the men ran down the officer and stomped on him and fired the guns. After giving a statement to police, he attended an identification parade a day later when he was asked by police to identify the men responsible for the shooting.

The witness said he pointed out three suspects wearing numbers 10, 2 and 5. When asked if he would be able to recognise the gunmen if he saw them again, the witness said the men were sitting in the prisoner’s dock; Davis, (no 10) Evans (no 2) and  Stubbs (no 5).

In cross-examination, Mr Ducille suggested to the prosecution witness that in his statement to police, he never mentioned identifying no 5 (Stubbs) and that he identified “only one person on that parade.”

The witness disagreed, maintaining that he identified three persons.

The lawyer also suggested to the witness that he was having trouble with his sight when the incident occurred.

But the witness said his cataracts had been repaired months before the incident.

The witness was then cross-examined by Mr Cargill, who suggested that the eye operation in question took place after the incident in 1999, when he was in Her Majesty’s Prison. The witness disagreed and maintained that it was before.

Mrs Farquharson-Seymour suggested to the witness that in October 1999 he admitted that he had trouble with his eyes, had been given prescription drugs and in November of that year, was admitted to Princess Margaret Hospital.

“When you were questioned yesterday, you said no,” Mrs Farquharson-Seymour suggested to the witness.

“I didn’t say no,” the witness answered.

The lawyer suggested that the witness was deliberately lying to the court. Mr Cargill interrupted the cross-examination with an application.

“Your lordship, I ask for perjury charges to be brought against this witness as he is lying in the face of this court,” the lawyer exclaimed.

Justice Jones told the attorney to “have a seat”, noting that the issue would be dealt with at a later date.

“I’m not going to deal with that now. It’s on the record,” the judge said when Cargill persisted in his application

The witness was asked by the jury if he had had surgery prior to the incident or after. The witness said he did have surgery before the incident, but noted that he had a cataract in his eyes “just about all my life.”

One Suspect Pointed Out

Following the key witness’s testimony, the prosecution called Inspector Rodney McKenzie to the stand, as he was the policeman who held an identification parade on March 30, 1999 when the previous witness selected suspect(s).

McKenzie said on the day in question, around 2:40pm, an ID parade was held with the three accused (suspects at the time) in connection with the shooting.

The policeman said 12 individuals bearing similar physical traits to the three were brought in and lined up with Davis, Evans, and Stubbs, making the total parade of participants 15.

The officer noted that there was no objection to the parade by any of the suspects.

Inspector McKenzie said a witness by the name “XXX” was escorted to him to point out who he saw that night in the shooting.

The witness, he said, pointed out no. 10. When asked if others were pointed out, the policeman said “to me, Mr Davis was the only person.”

In cross-examination, Mr Cargill suggested to the witness that three persons were pointed out that day. The officer disagreed and maintained that he was sure when asked a second time.

Mr Cargill further suggested that he and other officers told the witness who to point out on the ID parade. The officer again disagreed.

When asked by Mrs Farquharson-Seymour if her client, Evans, was identified by any of the witnesses during the parade, Inspector McKenzie said “no.”

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment