The trial of Office of the President (OP) Press and Publicity Officer Kwame McCoy, who was charged with assault over the gun-butting of Clifton Stewart, saw the final submissions of the prosecution and defence yesterday before acting Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
Witnesses Clifton Stewart, Woman Police Sergeant Roseann Ford and Police Superintendent M Chalmers were called to the stand by Police Prosecutor Sergeant Lionel Harvey, who examined them before allowing the defence to cross-examine.
Senior Counsel Bernard Dos Santos made a no-case submission on thegrounds of lack of evidence and the manner in which the investigations were carried out.
He cited the fact that the superintendent had stated in his evidence that he was investigating a crime in Norton Street when Stewart claimed that the incident occurred in D’Urban Street.
He also argued that his client was not in possession of his gun at the time of the incident since his gun had been lodged.
Furthermore the defence counsel contended that the medical certificate presented to the court showed that Stewart bore a mild bump in his head, whereas if one was hit with a gun one would expect some laceration or bruising.
Dos Santos’ submissions were challenged by Prosecutor Harvey, who stated that three witnesses had given evidence and the virtual complainant Stewart had also stated what occurred on the day and how he was assaulted and as a result he had received a medical certificate which was tendered.
Stewart, who was called to the stand first, stated that he has known McCoy for a number of years from the Office of the President. In response to the questions put forward by the prosecution he replied that on Saturday, November 12, 2012 at 10.10 pm he was walking on D’Urban Street when he saw McCoy with a few vehicles and more than 20 persons, one of whom was a female and he was instructing them to put PPP posters over those of APNU. He said he told McCoy that it was only two weeks that they had signed the Code of Conduct and he should know better.
He said he then told McCoy that he could put the posters above or below and that he would not stand and allow him to violate Mr Granger like that. He said at this time McCoy turned and inquired who he was and he replied that was not relevant.
McCoy then began to take pictures of him and he asked whether he should pose for the pictures. He was then told that he was a marked man. Stewart told the court that at this point he became fearful because he knew of McCoy’s character so he turned and began to make his way home. At this point McCoy reportedly entered his vehicle and slowly began following him making explicit statements about the leaders of the APNU and their members. According to Stewart, some girls in the vicinity “picked up McCoy and they had a verbal exchange.”
Stewart then said that he added his bit which resulted in the two men exchanging words and McCoy exiting his vehicle and assaulting him with a “shine gun”. He made his way into a taxi that took him to the East La Penitence Police Station and then to the hospital where a medical certificate was prepared and given to him. He later returned to the police station and gave his statement.
The prosecution called for the medical certificate to be tendered and the court was adjourned to 1 pm to facilitate this.
When the matter resumed, the other two witnesses were called and examined by the defence counsel and the prosecution regarding the part each of them played in the case as law enforcement officers. Chalmers stated that he had contact with both the defendant and the virtual complainant as he was involved in the investigation of the matter.
However, his evidence of the date and place of the incident was challenged by the defence counsel as inaccurate and inconsistent to those of the virtual complainant.
Woman Police Sergeant Roseann Forde who was the sergeant-in-charge of the East La Penitence Police Station where Stewart had made his report was asked to present the medical certificate that was entrusted to her for safe keeping. She said it was kept in a safe and logged in the general property book.
Her record keeping and recollection were also questioned by the defence who asked that she be recalled on the next court date where she should present to the court the general property book and the occurrence book which should bear related records as well.
After the submissions the magistrate adjourned the matter to June 4 when she said she will deliver her ruling on the matter.
