Defence challenges cop’s account of 2018 operation

Proceedings in the trial of alleged Clansman Gang leader Tesha Miller and 24 co-accused intensified Thursday as the 11th prosecution witness, a detective inspector, continued under cross-examination by attorneys for Miller and Micheal Wildman.

Miller and Wildman are named in count 14 of the indictment, which relates to a September 26, 2018, robbery in Cross Roads, St Andrew.

The witness was grilled about a police operation that same day, which led to the detention of three men in connection with a suspected plan to rob a post office.

Attorney John Clarke resumed his cross-examination by probing the officer’s documentation and procedures.

Clark asked him to define an “interview log”.

The officer responded that it was a document used to record the contents of an interview in a case file for the court.

Asked about “operation intel”, the 22-year veteran explained that it referred to a file detailing what transpired during an operation.

He reiterated that three men were arrested that morning in what he described as an intelligence-driven operation targeting a suspected robbery plot. While he decided the men should be detained, he said he did not order them fingerprinted, noting that such authority rests with a superintendent or higher.

Under questioning, the officer confirmed that one of the detainees travelled with him in a police vehicle to the now-disbanded Counter Terrorism and Organised Crime (C-TOC) office.

Clarke asked whether any records existed of what was said to the suspect during the journey.

“There would be no notes while driving,” the policeman responded.

“Any notes after driving?” Clarke shot back.

“I’m not sure,” the witness replied, admitting that he engaged the suspect in what he described as an informal conversation.

Clarke ended his cross-examination early, telling the court that certain documents were still outstanding and that without them, he could not properly represent Miller on the robbery count arising from the operation.

Attorney Paul Gentles, representing Wildman, then took over and challenged the officer’s account.

“Did you observe any attempt at committing this robbery?” Gentles asked.

“No,” the officer replied.

“Any attempted robbery?”

“No.”

The detective also confirmed that he did not see or obtain evidence placing Wildman at the location of the alleged planned robbery nor did he have evidence that Wildman conspired to commit it.

Gentles highlighted that one of the three detained men was chosen to ride in the officer’s vehicle. The detective said there was no particular reason for that selection and confirmed that four persons – three officers and the suspect – were inside.

Asked whether he knew the suspect would later become a Crown witness, the officer said no.

When Gentles referred to the man as a “self-acclaimed notorious criminal”, the detective responded, “I don’t know what you mean by a self-acclaimed notorious criminal.”

He acknowledged knowing of the suspect from prior profiling but denied discussing any arrangement for him to become a Crown witness.

At one stage Gentles told him, “I’m suggesting that you are not being truthful.”

“Your suggestions are wrong,” the detective responded.

Questioned about whether officers were heavily armed, the officer said he carried a service pistol and that the others were similarly armed. He denied that they had M16 rifles, maintaining that he team was on a covert operation.

The detective rejected suggestions that the men confessed to planning a robbery, saying that they merely accounted for their presence in Cross Roads. He also denied that the suspect avoided charges because of a deal to provide names of alleged gang members.

“I did not charge the suspect because he did not commit an offence,” the detective insisted.

The matter was adjourned until Monday. All defendants were remanded, except Dr Paul Robinson, whose bail was extended.

andre.williams@gleanerjm.com