Three policemen accused of seizing 301 grammes of cannabis from a man while conducting a mobile patrol and then demanding $75,000 from the said person to not prosecute him for trafficking in narcotics were yesterday remanded to prison.
The allegation against Shindell James, Eon Grannum and Jermaine Durant is that on November 12 at Georgetown, they demanded $75,000 from Brian Chung. The three police officers who are attached to the Tactical Services Unit (TSU) of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) have also been arraigned on the charge which alleges that on the same day, they had in their possession 301 grammes of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking.
37-year-old Police Constable James of 22 Stone Avenue, Camp-bellville, Lance Corporal Grannum of 22114 Flying Fish Street, North Ruimveldt and Constable Durant, 25, of 47 Goedverwagting, pleaded not guilty to the charges of extortion and possession of narcotics when they were read to them by Acting Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry.
The jointly charged trio was represented by attorney-at-law Gregory Gaskin who made an unsuccessful bail application. In an impassioned plea
Gaskin said that the trio is innocent of the charges.
According to Gaskin, the three cops, who prior to the incident boasted an unblemished record, were guilty of merely executing their lawful and obligatory duty to the state and are guilty of “absolutely nothing” more.
Gaskin argued that it was quite ironic and unjust that his clients were charged and placed before the courts while the “very Chung” in whose possession the illegal substance was found was not charged and is surprisingly at large.
“This is ironic! It makes absolutely no sense! The very man the police are admitting to have had the drugs in his possession is not before this honourable court, yet, surprisingly these three honourable policemen are standing before you my worship,” Gaskin argued.
Charges of possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking warrants the advancement of special circumstances relating to the offence and not the offender before the issue of bail could be considered and granted.
Against this backdrop, the lawyer told the court that his special circumstances revolved around the fact that the defendants were executing their lawful duty at the time of the incident, they were charged for extortion and as a result in the said incident could not have been arraigned on a narcotics trafficking charge also, Chung was present in the vehicle and had indicated ownership of the drugs and money at the time the three were intercepted by other police officers and that his clients had no previous antecedents.
Gaskin in his address to the court said that according to his instructions, his clients were in police vehicle PLL 1000 conducting a mobile patrol in the Campbellville area when they saw three young men acting in a suspicious manner. Noting the suspicious situation, Gaskin told the court that his clients, as they are trained to do, soon closed in on the men to conduct further investigations when they entered the house of Chung and found the quantity of cannabis along with the cash.
When asked by the lawmen who the drugs and money belonged to, Gaskin related to the court that Chung stepped forward claiming ownership of the items in question. Counsel added that his clients then collected the items and arrested Chung and were on their way to the Alberttown Police station when they were intercepted by another police patrol that arrested them all. Again terming the scenario an ironic one, Gaskin sounded his call for bail.
Prosecutor Stephen Telford in giving the facts of the case told the court that on the day in question, the three officers were sent out to conduct patrol duties on the East Bank of Demerara Highway at approximately 8:30 am and at some point ended up at the home of Chung where the items were found and taken possession of by the defendants who demanded that they be given the money so that Chung would be free of prosecution.
According to Telford, the policemen then left and Chung later called and reported to the Kitty Police Station what had transpired. This, according to the prosecutor led to a “sting operation” whereby another police patrol was dispatched to intercept the defendants.
In relating the prosecution’s version of the case, Telford said that the cannabis and the seventy-five thousand-dollar bills given to the patrol by Chung were retrieved. James, Grannum and Durant were later arrested and charged.
The prosecution had no objection to the men being granted bail on the extortion charge, but requested that they be denied their pretrial liberty on the other charge. According to the prosecutor, the attorney failed to advance special circumstances relating to the offence.
According to Telford, the defendants took an oath to serve and protect and to adhere to rules and regulations outlined by the GPF. Telford said that the actions of the police officers point to the fact that they wanted to be engaged in illegal activities as they were intercepted by the other patrol some hours after 8:30 am. He said that it was not until 5:00 pm that they were caught.
Telford argued that if the men had any intention of going immediately to a police station they could have done so as the Kitty Police Station is less than five minutes away from Chung’s house and the Alberttown Police Station is in close proximity as well.
“Why have the items in question on them so long?” the prosecutor asked. “They wanted to cause embarrassment to the Force,” Telford opined.
After some 15 minutes of arguments being advanced by the defence and prosecution, the prosecution’s request was granted as the three who stood in the docks, visibly concerned about their fate were told by the magistrate that they would be denied their pretrial liberty and sent to prison until November 19 for reports and fixtures. Their matters were transferred to Court Five.
