JP insists Ruddock was advised of right to remain silent

A justice of the peace (JP) on Thursday denied failing to protect murder accused Andre Ruddock’s rights during a caution statement in which he reportedly confessed to killing church member Taneka Gardner.

The witness maintained that Ruddock, a 36-year-old farmer and security guard, was advised of his right to remain silent and given an opportunity to speak privately with two JPs before proceeding with the statement.

He also rejected suggestions that he failed to ensure that Ruddock had a private discussion with the JPs or that he had not exercised due diligence and care during the process.

The witness also dismissed a suggestion that he had been present to serve the interests of the police rather than those of the accused.

Gardner was killed during an alleged sacrificial ritual at Pathways International Kingdom Restoration Ministries on October 17, 2021.

The following day, Ruddock reportedly gave the police a caution statement in which he admitted to cutting Gardner’s throat, saying it was something he should not have done and that he had acted on the instructions of church leader Kevin Smith.

The trial heard that two JPs witnessed the statement, which was video-recorded, and that a subsequent question-and-answer session was also recorded.

During cross-examination by defence attorney Venice Brown, the JP was grilled about whether Ruddock had been properly advised before making the statement and whether the discussions between them had been private.

The witness said suspects were normally informed of their right to legal representation and their option not to speak. He added that the police should not be within earshot during preliminary discussions.

“If we encourage a suspect to keep his mouth shut, I don’t know whether or not that would be a reasonable position to all officers, so we speak privately with the suspect and advise him of his right not to say anything,” he testified.

Brown questioned whether those discussions could be considered private if video and audio recording equipment was operating in the room.

The witness said he would have considered the discussions private because he did not know they were being recorded.

Two policemen involved in the statement-taking process had testified that the video camera remained on when they left the room to allow Ruddock to speak privately with the JPs.

REQUESTED A PRIVATE DISCUSSION

Asked whether he had instructed the police to turn off the recording devices, the witness said he could not recall doing so, explaining that the JPs had simply requested a private discussion with Ruddock.

“We were never trained to check if there were any video or audio recording devices in the space we were left,” he testified.

He acknowledged that recording would have been taking place when Ruddock was ready to speak but said he was unaware of any recording before that stage.

Brown also challenged the JP about advice he had given Ruddock concerning the caution statement and the subsequent question-and-answer session.

The attorney suggested that the witness had told Ruddock that if he gave a caution statement, he would have to participate in a question-and-answer session.

The witness initially disagreed but acknowledged that he had made the assertion after what he wrote in his October 27 statement was put to him in a suggestion.

Asked whether that was proper advice, the JP said he did not know how to answer, noting that Ruddock had been told before the question-and-answer session that he did not have to say anything.

He rejected the suggestion that the advice was misleading.

Asked whether he considered it good advice to tell Ruddock that he would have to participate in the question-and-answer session if he gave a caution statement, the witness replied: “I considered it good at the time.”

Brown also questioned whether the JP established if Ruddock had been questioned by the police before his arrival.

The witness said he recalled asking Ruddock whether he had given a statement rather than whether he had spoken with the police. He testified that Ruddock had said he had not given a statement.

Asked whether he established if Ruddock had been allowed to sleep before making the caution statement, the witness said he asked about the accused’s general well-being.

“He said he was fine,” the JP testified.

He also recalled asking Ruddock whether there was a family member he wished to contact before the question-and-answer session but could not remember whether he asked again after the caution statement had been completed.

The witness said Ruddock was advised of his right to an attorney and that duty counsel or a JP could assist if he did not have one.

“He did not have to speak to us or to anybody,” the witness said.

The trial continues on Friday in the Home Circuit Court.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com