The investigating team comprising ranks from the Guyana Police Force and the Jamaican Constabulary Force (JCF) found that Police Commissioner Henry Greene was “highly unprofessional” in his involvement with the woman who has accused him of rape, saying that his behaviour invoked constitutional grounds for removal from office.
“The commissioner has strongly refuted the allegation of rape, however, his action leaves much to be desired. The complainant was the subject of a criminal investigation which was known to him, as by his own admission formed the basis of her complaint to him in his capacity of Commissioner of Police. It is therefore highly unprofessional of him to have used his public office to engage the complainant in furtherance of sexual favours and as such invokes article 225 (2) of the Constitution,” the report, seen by Stabroek News, stated.
It is dated January 13, 2012 and addressed to Commissioner of Police (ag), Leroy Brumell.
Article 225 addresses the removal from office of certain public officials, including the Police Commissioner, and section 2 states that “the officer may be removed from office only for inability to discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause whatsoever) or for his misbehaviour.”
The investigation also found that on November 15, the Commissioner contacted the Commanding Officer of ‘C’ Division and enquired about the status of an investigation concerning the complainant and instructed that the investigators in the matter report to his office later that day. The investigators did visit his office as instructed and Greene perused the file and instructed them to expedite its submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon said earlier this month that the government has started deliberations under Article 225 in relation to the ethical issue of Greene’s admission to having sex with the woman . He did not give a specific time when the deliberations would be completed but said “…I certainly don’t believe that that would take five weeks to conclude.”
The findings of the joint team were not among the evidence submitted by DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack to acting Chief Justice Ian Chang, who was hearing applications by Greene’s lawyers to quash the DPP’s advice to charge him with rape and to bar the police from acting on it. Chang eventually ruled in favour of Greene, finding that the DPP’s recommendation was irrational and was unlikely to secure a conviction.
‘Questionable’
The investigation was conducted by a joint team which included four members of the police force, five JCF ranks and an expert from the Government of Jamaica Forensic Laboratory. In addition to its conclusion’s about Greene’s conduct, it found that the action of the complainant was “questionable,” when the circumstances leading up to, during and after the allegation were examined.
According to the 34-point interim report, which was signed by Crime Chief Seelall Persaud and Ealan Powell, the Assistant Commissioner of the JCF, from the investigations conducted there was no doubt that sexual intercourse had taken place but there was dispute as to whether it was consensual or forced. It did, however, note that the complainant’s indication of rape differed from the suggestion of two persons who were at the city hotel where the alleged rape occurred and that there were too many inconsistencies in her story to definitively conclude that she had been raped.
As part of the investigation, statements from 35 persons were recorded; the scene of the alleged rape was processed; an audio tape of a television interview given by the complainant reviewed; the commissioner’s land cruiser photographed; the hotel photographed and sketched; a business card allegedly given to the complainant by the Commissioner obtained and photographed; the area where the food was bought by the complainant at the request of the Commissioner photographed; and all other potential exhibits obtained, including the pants the complainant was wearing at the time of the alleged incident and the medical certificate from the medical examination conducted on the complainant.
Highlights of the statements made by Greene and the complainant formed the body of the report, and more than half of the points were taken from the statements the complainant gave investigators.
The report stated that it was found that the complainant met with the Commissioner on November 15 and November 22, last year, at his office. The Commissioner, it noted, made no mention of giving the complainant money except to buy food on the night of the alleged incident, while the complainant mentioned receiving “other monies on November 22 last and then again on December 6 last.” There was, however, a discrepancy in her account and that of her husband as it related to the amount given on November 11 while at the Commissioner’s office, the report said.
It was stated that the complainant’s report that she was “coerced and threatened by the Commissioner with a gun to enter the room” was refuted by the hotel owner and receptionist. The report said that the hotel owner and Greene had been friends for the past ten years as they both served on the Guyana Table Tennis Council, and that the complainant’s claim that the doors to the hotel were opened by Greene with keys he had in his possession was refuted by the hotel owner.
The claim by the complainant that she was begging and screaming while she was in room 101 where the alleged rape was committed was also “discredited” by the statements of the hotel owner and the receptionist, both of whom stated that the rooms were not soundproof and that they heard no unusual sounds, the report said.
It was also noted that despite the complainant’s claim of discomfort following the alleged incident, her mother did not observe anything unusual and neither did she complain to her mother when asked whose vehicle had taken her home.
It went on to say the mother indicated that the reason her daughter had given for not reporting the matter to the police was because the Commissioner had taken her straight home; however, there was evidence that she had made two stops before arriving home, when she had the opportunity to escape, including when they stopped to buy food on Regent Street, but she did not do so.
Further, the investigators noted that despite being threatened by Greene and complaining of being afraid of him “she met him alone and collected money from him. There is no indication that this was reported to her attorney-at-law prior to meeting him,” the investigating team said, “even though he was aware of the allegation.”
Further, the report stated that the complainant’s account that the doctor who medically examined her said that the infection she had, had been caused by the use of a condom allegedly used by the Commissioner was discredited.
Several inconsistencies were observed in the complainant’s account, it was noted, including her position on the bed when the Commissioner went into the bathroom upon conclusion of the intercourse; the number of the room where the incident occurred; and what exactly the Commissioner did with her phone after using it to send text messages to his phone.
Justice Chang, who relied on other statements submitted to him in his ruling, had said that the DPP’s advice was irrational as the circumstantial evidence did not present a realistic prospect of a conviction.
Chang found that the 34-year-old mother of two had no credibility and that her story was highly unbelievable. He quoted every detail of the alleged assault during his ruling.
Hours after the judgment, amidst tears, the woman stuck to her story. During a three-way telephone interview with this newspaper (her lawyer was the other party) the woman questioned why she would go public with the accusation if there was not some truth to it. She suggested that she and Greene be subjected to a lie detector test to end all speculation as to who was lying and who was telling the truth.
She stressed that she wanted to set a good example for her two daughters and was not concerned about how the public felt about the issue.
