BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – WITH over two decades as a journalist, both in Public Relations and Investigative Journalism, my experience may be considered as being vast. However, like all humans, I have made mistakes but I have also learnt from them.
My biggest mistake, while employed as Editor for a local newspaper, was not ensuring that the edited version of a letter to the editor was sent to the press instead of the non-edited one. That had cost me EC$7,500; money that I could have ill-afforded. Since then, I have vowed to be extremely cautious in the publication of opinion pieces, especially those that I believe to be bordering on libel, and also some of my findings during investigations that could have legal ramifications.
From this backdrop, I would like to inform readership about some of the demands being made by a number of individuals who have been posting comments on this website pertaining to the Conaree Beach drug bust and the charges laid against the three accused men.
The intelligence-led operation was conducted sometime after 5:00 a.m. on Thursday (Oct. 1) and resulted in one non-national being killed following a shootout with police officers.
Later that day, members of the Police High Command held a press briefing during which it was confirmed that one man was indeed killed.
“Early this morning, members of the RSCNPF conducted an operation at a secluded beach in the Conaree area. During the operation our officers observed a pickup truck on the beach and a speed boat approaching the shores. Upon their arrival, the two occupants of the vessel were challenged. One occupant opened fire upon our officers. Our officers, in defence, returned fire and one of the occupants was fatally wounded,” Acting Commissioner Stafford Liburd told media practitioners.
He continued: “The vessel was searched and four bails said to contain 124 pounds of compressed marijuana were discovered. The street value is approximately EC$930,000. Technicians of the Forensic Services Unit processed the scene and items of value were collected and taken into police custody for further analysis.”
Assistant Commissioner of Police with responsibility for Crime, Ian Queeley informed the media that the deceased was aboard the vessel when he was shot. He further said that two individuals were also on the beach with a pickup truck and that they had made an attempt to leave the scene but were apprehended by the police.
Liburd also said that the police’s operation was aided by the St. Kitts and Nevis Defence Force and the Coast Guard, from which a team of divers “recovered from the ocean one loaded .380 pistol with a magazine containing four rounds of ammunition”.
Three men were arrested and taken into custody. One was Kenrick Simmonds, the son of recently named National Hero and first Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis, Dr. the Rt. Excellent Sir Kennedy Simmonds.
The other two were Tenielle ‘Blaze’ Percival of Lime Kiln, St. Kitts and Greg Williamson of Antigua.
In a press release issued Monday morning (Oct. 5), police said Simmonds was “charged and cautioned for the offences of Obstruction under the Electronic Crimes Act and Incite to Import under the Drug Act”; while Percival was “arrested and charged for the offences of possession of a controlled drug, possession with intent to supply and importation of controlled drug”; and Williamson was “charged and cautioned” for "possession of a controlled drug, possession with intent to supply and importation of controlled drug”.
Later that day, it was learnt that the trio had appeared at the District ‘A’ Magistrate’s Court before Her Honour Josephine Mallelieu-Webbe and Simmonds was granted bail to the tune of EC$1M with EC$500,000 on each of the two sureties.
He was ordered to surrender his travel documents and to report to the Basseterre Police Station on Fridays. However, it was learnt that the two other accused were denied bail, reportedly because they might have skipped the jurisdiction. They were subsequently remanded to Her Majesty’s Prison.
Following the publication of all information provided by the police, I had received dozens of telephone calls and even stopped by many people while walking the streets of Basseterre, all of whom blamed private media practitioners for not conducting their own investigation into the matter rather than depend on releases from the police. I had also viewed many comments on this website where similar statements were made.
Some of the questions asked were: “Why were Kenrick Simmonds’ charges different to those of Tenielle Percival and Greg Williamson? Why didn’t the police wait until the bails of marijuana passed hands? According to Simmonds’ charges, was he one of the two individuals on the beach with the pickup truck, and if not, who was the second person and where is he or she? Why was Simmonds granted bail and the others were not? Why didn’t the police give a detailed explanation of Simmonds’ charges, such as to say ‘to wit’? Who was charged with attempted murder of police officers and who was charged with possession of firearm?
I must confess that these questions and a number of others were also on my mind and I had launched an investigation into them. However, I must explain the main reason why some of my findings will not be published at this time.
This matter does not only involve the shooting-death of a non-national, who is said to be a Dominican but was residing in Antigua at the time of his demise, but also a high-profile case that has to be settled in the Court. And because of this very important factor, the publication of my findings could certainly affect the course of justice.
You see, unlike some foreign countries including the USA, in St. Kitts and Nevis members of a jury are not sequestered in high-profile cases. Therefore, members of the jury will be privy to the publication of my findings, which could influence their decision in this particular case.
As a matter of fact, right here in the twin-island Federation, some judges and magistrates had complained about publications by the media on certain cases. Quite recently, I was told that Her Ladyship Justice Marlene Carter spoke to this issue, in which she reportedly stated that journalists should refrain from reporting sensitive matters that transpire in a current murder trial and should only do so at the conclusion of the case.
In response to the questions asked by those individuals earlier mentioned, I will first deal with the “attempted murder of police officers and who was charged with firearm possession”.
According to the explanation given by the Police High Command, although they did not go into details, it is logical to conclude that the dead man is the one who was in possession of the firearm and it was he who shot at them.
In relation to the police not waiting until the bails of marijuana passed hands, one can only suggest that something might have gone wrong during the operation. While they were laying in wait, either the two individuals on the beach with the pickup truck or the men aboard the speed boat might have discovered their presence and the ambush had to be prematurely sprung. However, I was not there neither were you the readers. Therefore, we have to accept the limited explanations given by the police and wait until the matter reaches the Court.
Concerning the question about the second individual on the beach with the pickup truck, again the police did not go into details. And with no one else been charged other than Simmonds and Percival, it is logical to conclude that the former was the second individual.
But why are his charges different to those of Percival and Williamson?
Again, the police did not give details of the charges or the Sections under which Simmonds was charged. However, from experience and past releases from the police, it is known that when one is charged the Section and an explanation would normally be given in the phrase ‘to wit’.
I understand ‘to wit’ means ‘namely’ or ‘that is to say’. This phrase is primarily used in legal texts and speech. For example, “John Doe of no fixed place of abode was charged for the offence of possession of a controlled drug, to wit cannabis, committed on October 2, 2015 at Grove Park.”
During my research on the two charges, I had found two Sections of the Electronic Crimes Act that speak to Obstructing; Sections 5 and 18.
SECTION 5
5. Interfering with computer data.
(1) A person who, knowingly and without lawful excuse or justification, does any of the following acts:
(a) destroys or alters data;
(b) renders computer data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of computer data;
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of computer data;
(e) denies access to computer data to any person entitled to it;
commits an offence and is liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine of one hundred thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term of seven years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(2) The provisions of subsection (I) are applicable whether the person's act is of temporary or permanent effect.
SECTION 18
(2) A warrant issued under this section may authorise or require
(a) a police officer to
(i) seize any computer, data, program. information, document or thing if he reasonably believes that it is evidence that an offence under this Act has been or is about to be conducted;
(ii) have access to and inspect and check the operation of any computer to which this section applies;
(iii) use or cause to be used any computer to search any data contained in or available to such computer;
(iv) have access to any information, code or technology which has the capability of converting encrypted data contained or available to such compute into readable and comprehensible format or text for the purpose of investigating any offence under this Act or any other offence which has been disclosed in the course of the lawful exercise of the powers under this section;
(b) an authorised person to render assistance to the police officer in the execution of the warrant.
(c) any person in possession of decription information necessary to decrypt data required for the purpose of investigating any such offence...
(4) Any person who obstructs the lawful exercise of the powers under subsection (2) (a) or who fails to comply with a request under subsection (2)(b) or (c) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of three years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
In relation to the second charge, I had found three Sections under the Drugs (Prevention and Abatement of the Misuse and Abuse of Drugs) Act that speak to Incitement.
SECTION 2
'drug trafficking" means doing or being concerned in any of the following, whether in Saint Christopher and Nevis or elsewhere...(c) importing or exporting any controlled drug where the importation or exportation is prohibited by section 4( l) or a corresponding law...
SECTION 15
15. Drug trafficking.
(1) A person who commits a drug trafficking offence or of being in possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of drug trafficking is liable,
(a) on summary conviction,
(i) to a fine of four hundred thousand dollars or where there is evidence of the street value of the controlled drug, of three times the street value of the controlled drug whichever is the greater, and
(ii) to imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years but which shall not be less than five years; or
(b) upon conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life but which shall not be less than fifteen years.
SECTION 19
19. Attempts, etc., to commit offences.
It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence.
So much for some of the questions people asked.
Despite suggestions that the Police High Command held the press briefing because of the implications in the shooting-death of a non-national and that the police wanted to demonstrate transparency as well as to foster better relationship with the public through the media, I do strongly disapprove of a press conference in which the organiser(s) is not prepared to answer pertinent questions related to the subject matter.
It was evident that members of the High Command were ill-prepared, thus many questions were skirted, not adequately addressed or left unanswered. It is my view that a press release should have been issued giving brief details of what transpired and stating that more information would have been provided on the shooting incident following a Coroner’s Inquest.
Conclusively, all of the findings of my investigation cannot be published at this time and I sincerely hope that I have adequately provided answers to the questions asked. Remember, this is a high-profile case.
