Lead cop warned by judge to attend trial

| 29/08/2012

courts good.jpg(CNS):  A Grand Court judge expressed his concern on Monday that a man in custody had to have his trial postponed because the lead police officer in the case notified the court at the last minute that she was unable to attend. Robert Aaron Crawford (19), who is facing charges of possession of an unlicensed firearm and was expecting his judge-alone trial to begin on Monday 27 August, will now have to remain in Northward on remand until 1 October when the trial has been rescheduled. Justice Charles Quin said the officer, who had known about the trial for ten weeks, should not have left it until the eleventh hour to announce she would not be there and warned that this could not happen again.

Crawford’s attorney, Nick Hoffman, expressed his concern about the situation because the defence requires the opportunity to cross examine the senior officer, who is a key witness in the case, and said how unfair it was for his client, who had been told on Friday evening that a key witness in has trial, due to start Monday morning, would not be available.

The lawyer said the prosecuting attorney was not at fault since he had notified the defence as soon as she was aware the officer would not be attending as she was reportedly overseas. 

However, Hoffman pointed to the officer’s position because she had known about the trial date for well over two months but she had left it until the last minute to inform those concerned. The lawyer said that the there was no choice but to adjourn the case, and while his client had agreed to the postponement, it was not something he had either wanted or caused.

Crawford is currently on remand at HMP Northward, where he has been since his arrest last November. “The RCIPS should take these matters far more seriously” when defendants are in custody, Hoffman said.

Justice Quin said he was sympathetic to Hoffman’s position and that of his client, who has been in custody since last year. The judge said the officer in charge of the case should be at trial from the start and remain throughout and that it was unsatisfactory for the court to be told at the eleventh hour that a police witness would not be attending. He pointed out that not only was the court and the defendant who were inconvenienced but the other civilian witnesses who were also present and ready to give evidence as well. The judge made it clear that he hoped he would not to see a repeat of the situation.

The judge’s comments come in the wake of several more made by his fellow judge, Justice Alex Henderson, who has noted that the postponements and continued long periods that defendants spend waiting for trials will cause the prosecution significant problems once the bill of rights is implemented in November. He has warned on numerous occasions that the delay in justice may result in cases being lost before they even start if the course of justice takes too long.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Crime

About the Author ()

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Until this Bill of Rights takes full effect and their ar$$e$ are slapped with a contempt of court charge and fined or jailed for 30 days…and the case thrown out…this will continue to happen…as it always has in Cayman

  2. Anonymous says:

    issue a warrant you know the law, even throw it out and teach the policeman a lesson, 

    • noname says:

      This is a violation of all entities including the courts. The case is to be thrown out. No cop, crown witness did not show up? In civilized countries this is THROWN OUT OF COURT! The accused wins! XXXXX

       

      This Comm of police needs to excel on the ground before a helicopter is warranted to tour the island with his UK tourist cops.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The problem the Cayman Islands has is that ECHR Article 6 (1) specifies 'everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time' and it's only a matter of time before these delays and no shows result in forced acquitals.

    This basically a matter for RCIPS and the judiciary to sort out between themselves and they need to do it quickly. Ducking out of a court appearance at the last minute needs to be treated as either contempt (which would be my choice) or an RCIPS disciplinary issue. Short of a death or serious illness in their immediate family a police officer has very few excuses for heading off island the day before a trial date.  

  4. Anonymous says:

    A separate issue in a different country, a senior traffic officer was my main witness in a trial for an RTA (road traffic accident in the UK) in which I was involved.  He was supposed to be there to testify my innocence for not being the one to cause this accident.  He didn't turn up, he gave no explanation and guess who ended up getting blamed and fined GBP5,0000?  Yup lil ole innocent me.

    • Legal Seagull says:

      If you did not serve him with a witness summons then more fool you.

      • Anonymous says:

        More fool me for paying the crappy lawyer you mean.  The police officer was the second vehicle in the accident, I was the 5th (couldn't brake in time to avoid the 4 cars that had a pile up in front of  me.  They were all claiming rear shunt but the traffic cop insisted that could not be the case has they had all collided and the final collision minutes after was when my vehicle went into the back of them because I could not brake and avoid in time.  His evidence was crucial.  He gave a satement and agreed to appear as a witness but as you state, it seems my lawyer didn't serve him with a summons.  The court house was minutes walk from the police station where he was based.  He didn't turn up, gave no reasons to the court in advance to excuse his attendance.  The judge got piffed off.  I lost.  Couldn't afford to appeal.  Cost me an arm and a leg, all because the policeman never turned up and didn't have the decency to inform the court, my lawyer or me he couldn't make it.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Lawyers do it too and many times it is because they have not "received encouragement" from their client.  THey just have a better way of saying it.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Truth Hurts: As a senior Police officer she should have written a letter to the courts if it was over illness, if it was her vacation, hang her out to dry.

  7. Truth Hurts says:

    Before everyone screams for the blood of this senior cop, it would be helpful to have reported on the REASONS for her being out of the island and therefore unable to attend the trial. Was the reason stated? If not, can CNS please investigate and find out the reason? For example, if a relative of this cop is perhaps sick and in hospital overseas, then you can perhaps understand and extend this cop some sympathy as to why she is not around. However she still should have notified the courts (or better yet – have her colleagues advise the courts) before the 11th hour. Lack of planning on the part of the Police – but lets not shoot the cop herself until the facts are known.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hurricane Ivan taught us that when required, members of the emergency services must respond without hesitation. Unfortunately, that sense of duty was ignored by many then as it is now. I don't care if this officer has personal issues or is just plain inept, her duty was to the Court and the Cayman Islands and she should have made every effort to either fulfil that duty or inform the Court in good time. If officers cannot fulfil their sworn duties with the professionalism required of them, then they should stand aside and let those who can, do.

      • Baz says:

        Its easy to talk about ‘your first duty being to the court’ when it’s not you who has to carry out this duty, but then it’s always easy to be an arm chair critic.

        Maybe this officer had a medical procedure off island, maybe a very sick relative? Are you telling me your going to go to court instead of take care of your sick relative? Of course you wouldn’t, but you would expect everyone else to.

        The bottom line is who knows, but as an ex RCIP officer it really would not surprise me if despite what the prosecution believes, she was only notified of the court appearance a short time before the trial after she had booked flights. I also might add I spent a HUGE amount of my days off, and annual leave, turning up to court for hearings which were 99% of the time adjourned, and I was never compensated for working on my days off / leave.

        So let’s just say my theory is right, you’ve booked flights to go off island whilst on leave for some important event, you the get told you are required for court, you know that 99% of the time when you go to court the trial never even goes ahead, would you cancel your flights, leave, and important event? I doubt it.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Anyone surprised by the incompentence/unprofessionalism here?

  9. Cayman Born says:

    No offense but a Warrant of arrest for failing to appear should had been issued as this officer obviously felt she could waste the time of the court and hold up due process for this young man.

    Let that try to be you or me who needs to go on a trip when a court case is coming up and see how fast they fling you in jail with that bench warrant.

    • SSM345 says:

      This sort of thing happens each and every week in our Courts, nothing new here.

    • Anonymous says:

      I have always been told that when served to do jury duty you have to turn up or pay the fine. In this situation a Police should not be excused either. I once had to pay a fine for a friend who was charged and did not turn up to court as the our good friend Mr Kipling told me that " Madam I am very sorry but you bailed the wrong person".