Good Hope arms trial
Army patrol had no authority to search vehicle -commander
By Andre Haynes
Stabroek News
May 13, 2003
The commander of the Army mobile patrol which intercepted the Good Hope trio yesterday conceded that he was not operating under any lawful authority when he searched the men’s vehicle where a stockpile of arms was allegedly discovered.
Guyana Defence Force (GDF) Corporal Travis Worrel made this disclosure while testifying under cross-examination before Principal Magistrate Jerrick Stephney yesterday at the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court, where the three men are being tried.
Shaheed Khan, Sean Belfield and Haroon Yahya are jointly charged with unlawful possession of firearms and unlawful possession of ammunition.
Belfield is also charged individually for two summary offences, being in unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.
According to the charges, on December 4, 2002 at Good Hope, East Coast Demerara, the three men were found in unlawful possession of a quantity of high-powered firearms and ammunition.
Attorneys for the men are Vic Puran and Glen Hanoman, as well as Nigel Hughes, who was absent from yesterday’s proceedings. GDF Attorney Tracy Gibson meanwhile entered an appearance for Corporal Worrel, whose interests she is overseeing.
Under cross-examination by Puran, who is appearing for Belfield, Corporal Worrel acknowledged that at the time the army mobile patrol intercepted the vehicle in which the men had been travelling, the occupants had neither committed an offence nor were they suspected of having committed any offence.
“There was no police rank present?”
“No.”
“You did not see any offence being committed before you stopped [them]?”
“No.”
“Your search of the vehicle commenced when you pulled off the covering?”
“Yes.”
“Before you pulled off the covering, you did not witness any offence?”
“No.”
“Nor did you reasonably suspect any offence?”
“No.”
“Nor did you inform Mr. Belfield that you had suspected that he had committed an offence?”
“No.”
According to Corporal Worrel, the patrol had been merely conducting a routine search.
However, when asked whether there was any written authority authorising routine searches upon the civilian population, he could not recall.
“Then you can’t recall having any written authority, correct?”
“Yes.”
“Nor can you recall any oral authority?”
“I cannot recall sir.”
“And I imagine you gave yourself that authority?”
“Yes.”
“Because, of course, you had the force of arms on your side.”
“Yes.”
“You would agree with me that you were not relying upon any law when you searched the vehicle?”
“Yes.”
At this point Khan interrupted the proceedings, saying that Gibson had been instructing the Corporal how to answer the questions.
Gibson took objection to this charge, which she denied, while the Magistrate noted that he had not observed any such correspondence and advised that he would object upon seeing any such indiscretions.
As the examination continued, Corporal Worrel admitted that he was aware that members of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) did, while on duty, carry firearms, though not being the holders of firearm licences, as did army personnel, himself included.
Asked whether he had attempted to ascertain whether Belfield had been on duty at the time of his detention, Worrel said no, though he admitted that he had had the ability to do so.
“You took the deliberate decision not to find out whether or not he was on duty?”
“Yes.”
“From Good Hope you passed four police stations before returning to Camp Ayanganna - [Beterverwagt-ing], Sparendaam, Prashad Nagar and Kitty - Are you aware of any reason why they were not taken to the police stations first?”
“Because I had to inform my boss first.”
However when pressed again to answer the question, Worrel replied no.
“When you saw these firearms in the vehicle, did you suspect that someone had committed an offence?”
“No.”
After a series of questions seeking to determine Worrel’s involvement in army outreach programmes, Puran asked the Corporal whether he was aware of President Bharrat Jagdeo asking civilians to assist law enforcement to prevent crime. To this Worrel replied yes.
“I wish to suggest to you that in your presence Mr Belfield said he had not broken any law?”
“I cannot recall.”
“Alright, you wouldn’t swear to God that he did not say so?”
“I can’t swear because I cannot recall.”
The hearing is to continue next Monday.
