…after cop bore false witness

A POLICEMAN, the main witness in a case of trafficking in narcotics, lied under oath and deliberately gave contradictory evidence, thereby facilitating the dismissal of charges against two men implicated in the trafficking of over seven kilograms of cannabis sativa. This was revealed in a West Berbice Court this week. At Weldaad Magistrates’ Court, Victor Edwards, 20 of Canefield Canje and Venson Charles, 24, of Lot 7677 Sheet Anchor Village walked free and Magistrate Rhondell Weever laid the blame for her release of them directly on “the deliberate and blatant lies and inconsistent evidence” given by Police Constable 2309 Bharat Shattapaul.
The magistrate said: “The prosecution failed miserably in establishing its case all because Constable Shattapaul deliberately and blatantly gave false evidence under oath.” Shattapaul , she said, had even admitted under cross-examination that he had been guided by one Corporal Foo to write his statement in such a way as to frame or entrap the two defendants for trafficking in narcotics.
Edwards and Charles had been accused of committing the offence at Washington Public Road on May 31st last. Venson Charles was the owner of the motor car in which the narcotics had allegedly been found. In initial evidence, the magistrate heard that the main witness, Constable Shattapaul, was en route to New Amsterdam when he saw a white motor car parked on the Washington Public Road a few hundred yards east of the Weldaad Police Station with a man whom he later identified as Victor Edwards standing three feet away from the vehicle.
Shattapaul said in his evidence-in-chief that he had seen a road block in progress at the Weldaad Police Station and suspected that the occupants of the car were seeking to avoid driving up to the road block. He said he became suspicious and approached Edwards, searched him but found nothing, then searched the vehicle where he found the seven kilograms and 225 grammes of cannabis sativa hidden in plastic bags behind the driver’s seat of the car.
This was in his evidence-in-chief.

In freeing the men, Magistrate Weever noted that under cross-examination, Shattapaul gave a completely different story. Under cross-examination, he stated that it was not true that Edwards was standing three feet away from the car; It was put to him that Edwards was not standing but walking and he answered yes , an answer inconsistent with the evidence he gave in chief when he said that he had seen the defendant standing alongside the motor car. When asked whether Edwards told him that he was in a car that broke down at Seafield Village farther east, he said yes. When asked why he had not divulged that information to the court, his answer was that he had been guided to write the statement by one Corporal Foo and had been told to leave that information out.
Shattapaul, the magistrate said, was then specifically asked that if he had taken Edwards to the car which had allegedly broken down, if he would not have had a better case before the court and he said yes. Shattapaul in his evidence-in-chief said that he pulled open the driver’s side door of the car to get into it, but under cross-examination he changed his story and said that the car was locked and when asked how he got it open, he said that a Corporal Grant was working on the road and he used Corporal Grant’s motorcycle keys to open the car. He was asked again why did he not tell the court that and again he said that he was guided to write his statement leaving out some pertinent details.
Magistrate Weever complained: “If the above inconsistencies were not enough to raise judicial eyebrows and throw doubt on the prosecution’s case, the icing on the cake came when the final cross- examination question was asked, which was that if he Shattapaul had felt that the defendants had been framed for trafficking in narcotics. He said yes: that the defendants had been framed. “The way this question was asked and from the demeanour of Shattapaul and the answer given, it was clear that this witness premeditated to answer this question the way he did; it was clear that this witness deliberately answered the question in the affirmative; to state that he had been guided to frame the defendants.”
She said: “It is clear that this witness deliberately omitted to give certain evidence in examination in chief, deliberately failed to carry out a proper investigation, gave false testimony under oath and deliberately gave evidence which tainted the prosecution’s case.”
She said that her court found that the entire conduct and the demeanour of Shattapaul and his participation in the investigation of the matter of the trafficking in narcotics of 7 kilos 225 grammes of cannabis sativa, fell short of being credible and reliable. She said: “The prosecution failed miserably in establishing its case all because Shattapaul deliberately and blatantly gave false evidence under oath. Accordingly, this court finds that a prima facie case is not made out and the court dismisses the matter.” The two defendants looking very relieved, thanked the magistrate for her decision.