St Catherine man acquitted after judge finds accused was being blackmailed

A man was freed in the Gun Court on Friday after the judge agreed with the defence that the police had targeted the accused because he did not pay the remainder of a $200,000 bribe that was demanded by law enforcers.

Carlos Crawford of St Catherine was arrested and charged in 2020 for allegedly disobeying a signal to stop at a police checkpoint and firing at men sworn to serve, protect and reassure.

Crawford, who was tried in the Gun Court by Justice Dale Palmer, had been charged with shooting with intent, discharge of a firearm to prevent arrest, illegal possession of firearm, illegal possession of ammunition, and driving a motor vehicle without owner’s consent.

The Crown, in presenting its case, said that on May 24, 2020 Crawford, who was driving a white Toyota Axio motor car, disobeyed a stop sign at the entrance to the Tawes Pen community and drove straight onto Williams Street without stopping. It said Corporal Jermaine Hayegordon, oltherwise called Kitson

Town, Constable Damaris Stewart and Constable Kevin Richards, who were driving along Williams Street, saw the action and gave chase.

The Crown further alleged that on reaching the intersection of St John’s Avenue along Williams Street, Crawford, while turning onto St John’s Avenue, lowered the window at the driver’s side and fired at the police. The police did not return fire but continued to give chase, the prosecution stated.

According to the prosecution, the police followed the vehicle back into Tawes Pen where, upon reaching an alley, the vehicle stopped and a male who was said to be in the front passenger seat ran while the driver and two other passengers who were seated at the back, including a pregnant woman, were accosted and made to lie on the ground.

The accused man’s attorney, Alexander Shaw, however, challenged the evidence of the three main Crown witnesses and the investigating officer.

Shaw contended that albeit DNA samples were taken from the motor car, there was no matching sample linking his client to the motor vehicle. He challenged the account of the investigating officer who did not visit the scene where the shooting was said to have taken place, pointing out that there were no spent casings to corroborate the evidence of the police that shots where fired. The only spent casings recovered were those found on the scene in Tawes Meadows which matched the firearms of the police who came on the scene, Shaw argued. He further presented video evidence of another man, who was the driver made to lie on the ground.

The police, however, contended that Crawford was bleaching his skin in May 2020 in explaining why there was a brown man on the ground in the video.

On Friday, in acquitting the defendant who wept while giving a sworn statement from the witness stand, the trial judge said he found it mysterious that the identification parade form that was served on Shaw and the accused described the person who was in the front passenger seat who the police said ran from the scene, but the witnesses identified Crawford as the driver. He further pointed out that up until the end of the trial no one knew who prepared the ID parade form, as the investigating officer was not the person who prepared or served the form on the accused.

According to the judge, if there was ever a case in which the motive being ascribed by an accused to the police, as to the reason for prosecution, Crawford’s would be the case. He referenced the video evidence which the police agreed that they saw, but maintained that Crawford was the driver of the vehicle and that he shot at them.

The accused man, however, testified that in April of the said year one of the cops (Corporal Jermaine HayeGordon) was among a group of police officers who demanded money from him when he was stopped by a team of police one night in the community. According to Crawford, he did not have a driver’s licence at the time and the cops requested $200,000. He said he was, however, only able to pay $50,000. The accused said that the police took one of his phones, which was never returned. According to Crawford, the reason the police plotted against him is because he did not pay over the sum demanded.

When the Crown challenged his account by questioning the reason he did not report this to the station, Crawford told the court that he could not report it because his life would have been in danger.