Ex-cops freed of gun charge in Villa beach incident

Zacroy John, the then-police constable, and Ishmael Isaacs, a mechanic and former police officer to whom he allegedly lent his service pistol to threaten a woman on Villa Beach on Dec. 6, 2023, have been freed of the charges against them.

John, 24, of Yambou and Belmont, and Isaacs, 31, of Diamond, were freed when Chief Magistrate Colin John upheld no case submissions by their lawyers, Kay Bacchus-Baptiste and Ronald Marks.

John had alleged that he did not lend the firearm to Isaacs but that Isaacs had taken it from his waist.

The police force dismissed John from the constabulary, reasoning that there was a dereliction of duty even if Isaacs had taken the firearm from him, as he had claimed.  

John and Isaacs were jointly charged that on Dec. 6, 2023, at Villa, they had in their possession one black Glock pistol serial number LNL 209 with intent to commit an offence.

They were also charged with possession of a firearm to aid in the commission of an offence, and being armed with a firearm, unlawfully threatened to discharge it at Danielle Webb, of Diamond Estate.

However, the unlawful possession charges against John were withdrawn, and he was tried for possession with intent.

However, when the prosecutor, Inspector of Police Renrick Cato closed his case at the Serious Offences Court, the defence counsel informed the court that they would be making no case submissions.

Bacchus-Batiste filed a written no-case submission and Marks made an oral submission to the court on Tuesday.

Marks concluded that there were two credible stories before the court.

“The first scenario is John took out the magazine, cleared the gun, and gave Isaacs the gun. Isaacs walked for about three minutes on the beach. And in one scenario, Isaacs gave back the gun to John.

The other one is that Isaacs took the gun from John’s waist. At no time in that scenario were any threats made by either defendant to grounds the case,” Marks argued.

“These two defendants, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it would not be unfair to describe their actions as irresponsible, as immature and just downright foolish,” Marks said.

“But they have not committed a crime, at least not the one that is before this court. They are both charged with possession with intent. No evidence supports this intent.”

Prosecutor asks for guilty verdict on alternative offences  

After hearing Marks’ submission, the chief magistrate asked the prosecutor to address the court on Marks’ point that the prosecution had failed to show that either man had intent to commit an offence.

Cato said that the prosecution had been relying on Webb’s evidence to ground their case.

“She chose not to give evidence in the matter and on the face of it, I know it would have been a difficult task, even at this stage of prima facie,” Cato told the court.

He said that even the other police officer who was present with John could not speak of any altercation between Isaacs and Webb.

Cato said that police officer Lee Providence, who had been called to the beach after the alleged altercation, could not give such evidence because it would have been hearsay.

“So, it should have been committed the offence of assault as it relates to Isaacs, and to John, it should be aid in the commission of an offence…” the prosecutor said.

Having acknowledged that the prosecution had failed to prove that the two men had intent to commit an offence, Cato noted that the law allows the court to find the men guilty of any other offence supported by the evidence.

Cato said the evidence was that John had a service pistol issued to him and at some point it was in Isaacs’ possession.

“That was not issued to him, he does not have a licence to carry a firearm,” Cato said of Isaacs, adding that John could be convicted of aiding in the commission of an offence of possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Prejudicial to consider other offences?

However, the chief magistrate asked Cato if he thought it would be prejudicial to consider those charges.

He asked whether it should be that the people preparing the charges should do a better job so that defendants could know what charges to defend themselves against.

Cato said it is unfortunate that the charges brought could not be sustained in the absence of Webb’s evidence.

Marks, however, said that the chief magistrate had “hit the nail on the head with regard to the issue of fairness”.

He said the section of the law that Cato cited applied “when by some inadvertence the evidence does not come up to proof.

“So, for instance, theft, if there is the absence of proof of intent to permanently deprive, taking of conveyance can be substituted,” the lawyer said.

He, however, said the prosecution was asking the court to correct their error in an instance in which the prosecution had presented a case and did not amend the charge before closing its case.

“That law does not intend to give the prosecution a second bite of the cherry,” Marks said.

“If you are saying a man is in possession of an illegal firearm when it is issued by the police, it would be a completely different case we would fighting,” Marks said.

The chief magistrate reserved his decision to the following day, when he upheld the no case submissions.

Prosecution confused about charges — lawyer

In written submissions filed on Aug. 18, 2024, Bacchus-Baptiste argued that the prosecution’s evidence, taken at its highest was such that a jury properly directed or the magistrate — who takes the role of judge and jury — could not properly convict John and there was a duty to stop this case.

Summarising the facts of the case, Bacchus-Baptiste said the prosecution was confused and initially charged John with unlawfully threatening to discharge his firearm at Webb, and that he had his pistol in his possession with intent to commit an offence.

However, these matters had to be withdrawn by the prosecution and were therefore dismissed, she said, noting that John was then charged that he “had in your possession one pistol with intent to commit an offence”.

The lawyer argued that the charge was too vague and that her client did not know which offence the prosecution was alleging that he had intended to commit.

“Therefore, they ought to be dismissed for lack of particularities, thereby causing prejudice to the defendant,” she said.

‘puffing his asthma gadget’

The defence lawyer also argued that the evidence in the case was weak.

She said that Brian Cuffy, the prosecution’s star witness, was very unreliable and resorted to puffing his asthma gadget when he was so confused and could not respond intelligently to the cross examination.

Bacchus-Baptiste stated that Cuffy’s evidence was that the beach was filled with many people between him and the defendants.

“He was very confused about how he recognised the defendants. So poor was his evidence that he resorted to lies to the effect that he (i) saw them all around after (ii) then he never saw them after, (iii) but he saw them after on the beach, (iv) then he did not see them again.”

Bacchus-Baptiste said Cuffy was discredited as he wavered between seeing the defendant after that day on the beach and never seeing them again.

She told the court that Cuffy had clearly said that John was telling Isaacs to bring the gun but Isaacs would not give up the gun.

“This completely negatives the charge that Zacroy John used a gun to aid in the commission of any offence,” Bacchus Baptiste argued.

‘tenuous inconsistent and inherently weak’

She questioned how Cuffy never saw a bullet falling to the ground from the magazine in light of his claim regarding Isaacs getting the gun.

“This glaring omission makes his evidence so tenuous, inconsistent and inherently weak,” the lawyer said, adding that Cuffy had repeated that John was asking Isaacs for the gun.

“Then he said Isaacs pointed the gun at ‘the girl’. This was not borne out by anyone. No girl came to support this incredulous story,” Bacchus-Baptiste said, adding that the case could be dismissed at the end of Cuffy’s evidence since no one else saw what had occurred.

The lawyer said that Isaacs’ statement is inadmissible against the co-accused John.