Cop guilty of killing Matelot man

A POLICE Constable was yesterday convicted of killing Matelot resident Neil Sutherland on Good Friday 1995, following a police raid at a home at Marcelle Trace, Matelot. However, PC Mihiset Green will have to wait until April 19 to find out what punishment will be handed down against him. Green was originally charged with murder in the shooting death of Sutherland, but the jury returned a guilty verdict to the lesser count of manslaughter after deliberating for two hours. Following the verdict, members of the Sutherland family, including the dead man’s father St Clair Sutherland, stated that they believed that justice was served.

Justice Volney thanked the members of the jury for the service they rendered during their extended month of jury service and came out in high praise for State Prosecutor George Busby for the manner in which he conducted the trial. The judge pointed out that State attorneys have been criticised a lot in recent times, but he said that special commendation must be given to Busby for a job well done. Green, 44, of Arouca, appeared before High Court Judge Herbert Volney in the Port-of-Spain Second Criminal Court charged with murder, after he allegedly shot and killed Sutherland following a raid at Sutherland’s brother’s Marcelle Trace Matelot home on April 14, 1995. In his closing summation yesterday, Justice Volney noted that there was compelling evidence for the jury to arrive at the conclusion that Green killed Sutherland. However, he pointed out that there were several things that must be considered to assist them with their deliberation.

Volney went on to explain the basis for applying the law to the evidence that was presented during the trial. He explained that a murder conviction required that the element of unlawful killing occurred, which he explained happens when there is no legal justification or excuse for the act that was committed. In addition to the element of unlawful killing, Volney explained that the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm must exist. Touching on the evidence of the defence, he pointed out that both Green and PC Yorke had indicated that there was a threat to their lives and that Sutherland had claimed that he was going for his gun to come back “to shoot the police.”

He directed the jury that if they found that there was sufficient proof that Green and the other officers were in fact under threat and were fearful for their lives, then they must not think that they are doing Green a favour in returning a not guilty verdict. However, if they were sure that Green did not have murderous intentions, then they must consider if the act and conduct in the circumstances were deserving of punishment. He noted that if they found it was deserving of punishment, then they must find him guilty of manslaughter.

Volney told the jury that if they were unsure whether he was guilty of murder or manslaughter then it meant that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and as such they should acquit Green of the charge. The judge then went into the evidence that was presented by both the defence and the State attorneys. The matter continues on April 19, when Green will be sentenced. SC Pamela Elder and Owen Hinds Jr represented Green in the matter, while Busby appeared for the State.