Cop gets 10 years for killing Matelot man

Justice Herbert Volney described as deliberate, wanton and reckless the killing of a Matelot villager by police constable Mihiset Green and sentenced him to ten years hard labour yesterday for the unlawful shooting nine years ago. The judge said it was an abuse of police authority and warned other policemen, estate officers and firearm holders generally, not to be reckless but to use discretion when using a firearm or face the consequences. Volney also expressed concern and disquiet about police officers investigating fellow officers and called for an independent investigating unit akin to that of a Crime Ombudsman.

The judge felt that the ordering of a Coroner’s inquest prior to charging Green with murder had given him a benefit not equally given to ordinary citizens. Justice Volney  also noted with distress the killings of young people in small communities in the country. Green’s attorney, Pamela Elder SC, who only minutes earlier had pleaded with Justice Volney for “mercy, mercy, mercy,” and a light sentence for her client, immediately announced her intention to appeal. She asked the court to make available to her, as soon as possible, the part of the transcript which recorded the announcement of the jury’s verdict so that she could file her appeal and possibly obtain early bail for Green.

State prosecutor George Busby declined from making any comment, and left sentencing up to the court. Green was before Justice Volney in the Port-of-Spain First Criminal Court charged with shooting 31-year-old Neil Sutherland to death with a  Self-Loading Rifle  (SLR), during a police raid  at Marcelle Trace in Matelot on April 15, 1995. Green was charged with murder, but the jury found him guilty on the lesser count of manslaughter. In passing sentence, Justice Volney said: “Inherent in that verdict, it would seem to me, is a complete rejection of your plea of justification, raised in your defence, that you acted both in defence of your colleagues and of yourself.

“In finding you guilty of manslaughter, the jury found that you acted recklessly in discharging a SLR at the deceased thereby unlawfully killing him. “You were on that day, Good Friday (April 15, 1995), dressed in casual short pants, slippers, and in possession of a police revolver. You were later paraded and dispatched in the cover of heavy guns with constables (Lewis) York  and (Steve) Campbell to what emerged in the evidence to be no more than a small group of villagers having a Good Friday smoke of marijuana. “I noted with alarm that constable York and you had been socialising, from the evidence, in the village parlour for some time immediately before effecting the arrest of a villager, and the subsequent despatch to the scene of the crime leading to this incident to which you have been found criminally culpable. Without the required permission to be in civilian attire, these paraded officers proceeded to carry police weapons to effect an arrest.

“It is no surprise to this court that you proceeded to act in the manner in which you did. On my viewing of the evidence, it amounted to nothing short of an abuse of police authority. Perhaps if you had been wearing your uniform, you might have been reminded and continued to be aware of the great trust reposed in you as a police officer when given use of police weaponry. “You (and other officers in similar circumstances) are expected, and were expected to display a very high standard of care for the welfare of citizens whom you are sworn to protect... Thus discharging or even brandishing a loaded weapon at a civilian can only be lawful if it is justified. And the law of justification is quite clear in that the use of a loaded firearm by a police officer must be measured given the circumstances of the particular duty.

“If the use of a loaded firearm by a police officer on duty crosses the rubicon and falls outside the scope of his duty of care, he will likely be found to be criminally culpable.” Justice Volney also observed that “the system as obtains that police officers investigating other police officers as an internal matter leaves much to be desired. I am left with a grave sense of concern and disquiet that the manner of the investigation and the use of a Coroner’s inquest prior to the laying of a charge of murder may well in this case have given the prisoner a benefit not equally given the ordinary citizens of this country.”

Justice Volney made it clear that his comments are not to be understood as being critical of the manner in which the police complainant went about his task, but only in a system that appears to lend itself more favourable to a police officer than to those persons whom he is sworn to protect. The judge added: “Perhaps the time has come for consideration to be given to the creation of an independent office akin to that of a Crime Ombudsman, who is independent. The independence of such an office, being sufficiently far removed from the Police Service, would go a long distance in restoring public confidence in the way persons, including police officers, are investigated and brought before these courts. “On the face of this case, the prisoner (Green) was in office and had over 12 years service when he recklessly fired a shot at the deceased, mindful of the risk and having regards to the duty of care expected of him, but obviously on the evidence, indifferent to the consequences of this very unlawful act in view of all the prevailing circumstances.”

He told Green: “You must be made to feel the retribution of the law for your deliberate and wantonly reckless act. This sentence must serve as a warning to all precepted officers of the law, whether in the Police Service or not, and even those persons under licence to lawfully bear and carry a weapon, that the better of discretion is expected of them. “There is a duty with possession of a loaded gun to be careful, and to use it only in a lawful manner. A loaded gun that is pointed to a human being, or in his direction is an unlawful act unless justified by the circumstances. “All those who are unsure of the law of justification, including police officers, must quickly learn it for there is a price to be paid for the unlawful use of a loaded firearm, whether it is licenced or not.”

Recognising that Green did not use great responsibility and discretion while in possession of the gun, Justice Volney further stated: “You abused the trust reposed in you by displaying not only a lack of discretion in its use, but an abuse of the power and authority of the Police Service. “What is more is that you have taken a human life and, as you live, the pain of that taking lingers on in the village of Matelot; and not just in the village of Matelot, but in all the small communities in this land where persons, especially the young, are being shot and killed. “Justice is here to be had by all the citizens, no matter what their station in life is, and your conviction is testimony to this pillar or our democratic way of life.”