The Tribune

By KEILE CAMPBELL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kcampbell@tribunemedia.net

A MAN charged with murder over a fatal shooting will stay behind bars after a Supreme Court judge refused his renewed bid for bail.

The judge found that removing two gun charges from his indictment did nothing to change the core allegation against him.

In a ruling dated September 29, Justice Jeanine Weech-Gomez said the allegation that Jonathan Davis took part in a fatal shooting remained unchanged, even though his voluntary bill of indictment now contains murder alone. Davis previously also faced charges of possession of an unlicensed firearm and possession of ammunition.

The judge concluded that no bail conditions could adequately reduce the risks of further violence, witness interference or absconding in the case. She had considered sureties, electronic monitoring, reporting requirements, a curfew or a combination of these.

The ruling summarised a report from Assistant Superintendent Paul Cash. He said he was in an unmarked police vehicle when he heard rapid gunfire and a woman screaming. He then saw two men firing a weapon at a man on the ground before they left in a red Mazda.

ASP Cash said he followed the Mazda. When it was pulled over on West Bay Street, he said, its occupants abandoned it and got into a dark grey, two-door Honda Civic.

Detective Sergeant McKenzie reported seeing Davis jumping over a fence and finding the grey Honda Civic in nearby bushes. Davis allegedly admitted to the officer that he had been driving it.

According to the evidence summarised in the ruling, civilian eyewitness Oshimae Bethune said she saw the deceased shot multiple times. She identified one of the defendants holding a firearm she described as a long gun.

Rose Spence, described as Davis's friend, said she lent him her grey Honda Civic on the day of the incident. According to the ruling, she said it was the vehicle police said had been used in the alleged offence.

Defence attorney David Cash argued that Davis was a suitable candidate for bail. He challenged the identification evidence, the link between the alleged getaway vehicle and the shooting, and the weight given to Davis's criminal record.

Mr Cash said Ms Bethune did not mention any vehicle in her statement. He also said Ms Spence described lending Davis her car without herself connecting it to the shooting.

He questioned the reliability of Ms Bethune's identification. He cited the timing of about 10pm, her screaming and his account that the deceased was her husband.

Justice Weech-Gomez said the prosecution's evidence had to be considered together, rather than requiring any single witness to describe every part of the alleged sequence. She found that the defence's concerns about Ms Bethune's identification were matters to be tested at trial through cross-examination.

Taken as a whole, she concluded, the evidence disclosed reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify continued detention, subject to the other factors required under the Bail Act.

The prosecution opposed bail through an affidavit sworn by Tanesha Forbes, an attorney at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It argued that eyewitness, identification and circumstantial evidence linked Davis to the shooting and to the vehicle allegedly used by the assailants.

The prosecution also raised public safety concerns about gun violence. It argued that Davis's own safety could be at risk if he were released, because of what it described as a culture of retaliatory violence. It said the seriousness of the charge and the potential penalty gave him a motive to abscond or interfere with witnesses.

The ruling recorded that Davis has a previous conviction for causing harm and a separate pending charge of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life.

Mr Cash argued that the previous conviction did not, by itself, make Davis unsuitable for bail. The judge said the pending firearm charge remained unproven and should not be treated as a conviction, and she gave it limited weight. She treated the causing-harm conviction as a matter of record.

Justice Neil Brathwaite refused Davis's earlier bail application on February 25, 2025. Davis renewed the application on July 21, 2026, and Justice Weech-Gomez heard it on September 1.

The judge found that the case was proceeding in a reasonable time. She said no submission had been made that Davis was unlikely to be tried within a reasonable time. The ruling recorded a backup trial listing for October 19 to 30, 2026.