The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) has found that there were serious credibility issues in reviewing the complaint brought by Nzinga King, the 19-year-old Clarendon Rastafarian who claimed her dreadlocks were cut by a policewoman while in custody.
DPP Paula Llewellyn today ruled that there should be no criminal charges against the cop.
The Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) had also made a similar finding.
READ: DPP rules no criminal charges in locks-cutting case of Nzinga King
According to the DPP, King contradicted her own accounts and witnesses too.
See full text of the DPP’s ruling here:
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That no criminal charges be laid against the female police officer in respect of the allegations made by Ms. King involving the cutting of her hair. We concur with the Independent Commission’s (INDECOM) finding on this issue.
2. That no criminal charges be laid against the male police officer pertaining to allegations involving Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, who is the arresting officer pertaining to the charges against Ms. King for Failing to Wear a Mask in Public; Disorderly Conduct and Abusive Language. We concur with the Independent Commission’s (INDECOM) finding on this issue.
3. That the ODPP’s recommendations in paragraphs 1 and 2 does not preclude Ms. King from pursuing civil remedies in relation to her complaint. The civil standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities which is lower than the criminal standard, this being proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. No recommendation is made in respect of a possible investigation regarding Ms. King for the offence of Creating Public Mischief. We are aware that the police authorities have primacy of decision making regarding any investigation and the laying of charges. It is a matter entirely for them if they believe there is a sufficient basis to pursue an investigation against Ms. King. They may choose to do so or they may decline.
5. We do concur with INDECOM that there should be a departmental enquiry into any possibly observed administrative breaches pertaining to any failure by the police to make the relevant records that they were obliged so to do at the material time that Ms. King was detained at Four Paths Police Station.
6. We also concur with INDECOM that Ms. Nzinga King should be afforded professional counselling.
We strongly recommend this course be pursued by her family and any competent authority.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Nzinga King is a member of the Rastafarian Faith.
She has been a member of that community since she was a child and wears a dreadlocked hairstyle. She asserts that this hairstyle is a part of her identity.
ALLEGATIONS
Ms. King’s Account
On the 29th day of June, 2021, at approximately 4:00 pm, Ms. King was seated in a taxi with other passengers including a young man whom the police were attempting to detain.
This man failed to accede to the officer’s demands and an altercation developed between him and the officer.
As this escalated, the officer sprayed ‘pepper spray’ inside the vehicle which affected all the passengers including a nursing mother.
Ms. King came out of the car and removed her mask which was ‘covered with pepper spray’.
At this time, she was, in her words, ‘very angry and aggressive’ and enquired from the officer the reason for his conduct regarding releasing pepper spray in vehicle.
She engaged the officer verbally and upbraided him for being unprofessional and unethical.
Ms. King states that the officer got ‘really upset’ and charged her for not wearing a mask in public.
She was detained and taken to the May Pen Police Station where she was bailed for court on the 22nd of July, 2021.
On attendance at court she was advised that she was charged with Disorderly Conduct. She pleaded guilty to this offence and was fined.
She was then placed in custody and taken to the Four Paths Police Station as the fine had not been paid.
She arrived at the police station in the afternoon and approximately fifteen minutes later she saw the female police officer who instructed her to go inside the bathroom.
As soon as Ms. King entered the bathroom, so did the officer who had a pair of orange scissors in her hand. The officer searched her and then instructed her to loosen her hair which was wrapped in a bun.
Ms. King failed to comply but eventually obeyed the instruction. The officer then held her locks in a bunch and began cutting it.
The said police officer then called a district constable and requested another scissors which she got and used to continue cutting Ms. Kings locks.
Ms. King states that the officer cut ‘all the long ones’ and in another statement she says they were cut from the root.
During the ordeal, Ms. King kept asking why her locks were being cut; the female officer told her that her ‘hair could pose a threat to [her] and other inmates’.
Ms. King gathered some of her locks and she was taken to a cell where she saw two other ladies.
On Saturday the 24th of July, 2021, Ms. King heard her cellular phone ring from another cell. Checks were made by the officers and Ms. King’s phone was found.
The female officer asked who the phone belonged to and Ms. King acknowledged ownership. This officer slammed the phone in the grill causing it to shatter.
She states that she had no idea how her phone ended up in a cell that she was not in and she had not seen her bag with her phone and other items after she had gone in the bathroom where her hair was cut.
Ms. King was released from custody on the 26th of July, 2021, when her fine was paid.
When her mother, Ms. Shirley McIntosh, came to collect her she found that her hair was cut and was extremely upset. She told her mother that her hair was cut by a police officer and her mother made a report to the police.
The Police Account
On the 29th of June, 2021, a male police officer and other members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force were on Enforcement duty in the May Pen Police Division.
At approximately 4:30 pm he observed a young lady who later gave her name as Candace King o/c Six, walking along the street without a mask.
When the officer approached her and made enquires about her mask she became boisterous. She was advised of the offence of Failing to Wear a Mask in Public in breach of the Disaster Risk Management Act and arrested.
She became even more obstreperous and verbally maligned the officer and resisted lawful detention.
The officer stated that the disorderly conduct continued to accelerate causing him to employ every aspect of his training geared at de-escalating conflict.
Ms. King proved impervious to these methods and the officer had to resort to the use of pepper spray.
After managing to place her under arrest, Ms. King continued her verbal onslaught and hurled foul indecencies at the officer even when the offences were outlined to her.
Upon being advised of the offence of Disorderly Conduct Ms. King said “mi a guh f*(k yu up”
She was eventually charged for the offences of Disorderly Conduct, Abusive Language and a Breach of the Disaster Risk Management Act (Failure to wear a Mask in Public).
Ms. King appeared in court on the 22nd of July, 2021 and pleaded guilty to the offences of Disorderly Conduct and Abusive Language and was sentenced to a fine of $3,000.00 or ten days imprisonment on each offence; she pleaded not guilty to breaching the Disaster Risk Management Act and a trial date was set.
After court she was taken to the Four Paths Police Station as the fines had not been paid. Upon entering the police station Ms. King was ‘behaving boisterous[ly] and pointing up in [an officer’s] face and cursing’. She said ‘mi nuh like man, an mi nuh like police’.
Cpl. Angell Mitchell-Lewis searched her, instructed her to loosen her hair, searched her hair and placed her in the cell.
Sometime after placing her in the cell, the female officer heard the other prisoners shouting that Ms. King was ‘pulling’ and tearing out her hair and throwing it on the ground and said “police fi cum nyam it”.’
The female officer and the Inspector visited the cells, and saw the hair on the floor.
Ms. King was asked why she had torn out her hair and she did not respond. The female police officer later swept away the hair and caused it to be removed by the ground’s man.
On the 25th of July, 2021, the female officer searched the cells and found a phone which Ms. King said belonged to her. Upon closing the cell door, the phone fell from her.
The Account of other Detainees
Witness # 1 had been detained at the Four Paths Police Station on a charge of Conspiracy to Commit Murder.
She was in cell number one which is across from cell number three where Ms. King was housed.
On the 22nd of July, 2021, she saw when a young lady with ‘rasta’ hairstyle was placed in cell number three.
Witness # 1 became aware that this young lady was called Candy. While Candy was seated on the bunk bed she could see her and she heard Candy say that her hair ‘couldn’t stay like this’.
Witness # 1 then observed Candy ‘tearing out the locks’ out of her head and said she was keeping them for the ‘police to “nyam” them’.
Witness # 1 and the other detainees asked why she did that and she told them she was going to dye her hair red when she was released.
Over the period of two days, ‘Candy’ plucked the locks from her head and thereafter tied her head with a cloth.
Upon ‘Candy’s release, she told the other prisoners that she was going to ‘obeah’ them so that they would kill each other in the cells.
Witness # 1 also heard someone who she says is ‘Candy’s mother speaking loudly and asking why her locks was cut; she also said that the act of cutting the locks was a ‘dagger to her heart’.
This lady also told the police that she had to carry ‘Candy’ to the psychiatrist as she had suffered a traumatic event.
Witness # 2 was detained in cell number three along with another female detainee and a lady she came to know as Candice King.
Candice told them she was arrested because she threw rum on girl and burnt her; however, the police later told them that she was detained for Disorderly Conduct.
Witness # 2 describes her as ‘maaga’, feisty’ with a ‘hostile habit’…. ‘she move mad and behave psychotic.’
Witness # 2’s account is that upon coming into the cell, Candice had her phone and was on a video call with someone telling them that the police had cut her hair. Witness # 2 observed at this time that Candice had shoulder length locks, the back of her locks looked as if it had been cut in a style.
Witness # 2 observed that later that day, Candice sat down and started to ‘pop out her hair with her hands and she take about two days to sit down and pick out all the hair. It was not the police lady that cut off the hair; is she pop dem out one by one.’
Account of her Schoolmates
Witness # 3, a school mate of Ms. King was aware that Ms. King was in custody as Ms. King had posted it on her WhatsApp status. She saw Ms. King again on the 27th of July, 2021 when she went to school.
Ms. King confided in witness # 3 and told her that she was ‘stressed’ and that her child’s father had come to pay the fine; on her way home the police stopped the car, searched it and a gun was found.
She said they were later released after they were exonerated by a video and released without charge.
Upon reaching home she saw something in her hair resembling fungus and she had to cut it.
Another of Ms. King’s classmate, Witness # 4, supports the statement of the police who arrested and charged Ms. King for the offences of outlined above. She speaks to Ms. King having spoken of plans to cut her hair approximately one week prior to the incident; after the incident she heard her say ‘what is not this, look how mi cut mi hair and can’t comb it’.
The following day Ms. King went to school and continually bemoaned the loss of her hair and said she was sorry she had cut it.
The Forensic Evidence
A Buccal swab was taken from Ms. King for the purposes of DNA analysis and comparison. This was submitted to the Institute of Forensic Science and Legal Medicine. Also submitted were strands of locks recovered by both the police and INDECOM as a part of their respective investigations.
The analysis of these items were submitted via forensic certificates dated the 31st day of January, 2022 and the 9th of February, 2022.
Analysis was done in respect of hairs found protruding through a vent in the cell where Ms. King was housed and hair submitted by Ms. King to the police. The latter is based on information gleaned from the statements and the forensic certificates.
The hairs submitted by the police which we conclude were handed over by Ms. King and submitted to the Lab were analysed, however, no DNA was found. The hairs collected by INDECOM from the vent at cell number three were analysed and found to match with the DNA from Ms. King.
The Investigation
Both INDECOM investigators and police from the Inspectorate and Professional Standards Oversight Bureau conducted investigations into the allegations made against the female officer. Statements were taken and the scene examined and photographed. On the 4th of August, 2021, a Crime Scene examiner photographed the relevant areas of the Four Paths Police Station.
Photographs were taken of the two vents leading to cell number three, this is the cell in which Ms. King was detained. These photographs show strands of what appear to be locked hair protruding through holes in the vent. Locks were also seen on the outside of the vent.
ISSUES
Whether there is prima facie evidence of that the offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm had been committed by anyone in respect of the separation of locked hair from Ms. King’s scalp.
Whether there is prima facie evidence that the offence of Malicious Destruction of Property had been committed by anyone in relation to Ms. Kings phone.
Credibility – has the required legal threshold been established which would be capable of supporting a viable case in relation to either offence mentioned at paragraphs 41 and 42 given the available evidentiary material.
DISCUSSION
The Offences
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
To cut a person’s hair without their consent is an Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and is triable at common law. There is no reported case in the Jamaican jurisdiction dealing with this specific issue; however, the case of The Director of Public Prosecutions v Michael Ross Smith [2006] 2 All ER 16. This is an English case where the defendant had been charged for cutting off a substantial portion of the complainant’s hair.
The case was appealed on a point of law; the legal question was whether it is an assault occasioning actual bodily harm to cut someone’s hair. The instructive portion of the judgement is as follows:
‘The cutting of a victim’s hair without consent constituted actual bodily harm for the purposes of s 47 of the 1861 Act.’
‘…….., it was necessary to look at the definitions of those words as used in ordinary language. The harm was not limited to injury and extended to hurt and damage. Actual meant that bodily harm should not be so trivial as to be without significance.
Moreover, actual bodily harm was not limited to harm to the skin, flesh and bones it applied to all parts of the body. Whether it was alive beneath the surface of the skin, or dead tissue, hair was part of the body and intrinsic to each individual. An individual’s hair was relevant to his or her autonomy.
Even if it was scientifically and medically treated as dead tissue, the part of the hair which was attached to the scalp fell within the meaning of bodily in the term ‘actual bodily harm’.
Moreover, if paint or some other unpleasant substance was put on a victim’s hair that would also be capable to amount to actual bodily harm.
Malicious Injury to Property
To intentionally and maliciously damage property belonging to another is an offence contrary to section 42 of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act. Ms. King’s statement alleges that the damage to the phone was deliberate and without legal reason or excuse.
Credibility
Certain aspects of the offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and the evidential requirement noted above could engender an interesting legal discussion; however, the glaring issue is one of credibility given the particular circumstances of this case.
Credibility is the structural framework on which any prosecution stands. Once, on the face of it, there is information to support that a crime has been committed, the prosecutor must assess whether the witness or witnesses to the offence will give relevant, reliable and cogent evidence on which a court can rely to come to decision ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that the person accused of this crime is guilty.
This is succinctly put in the Decision to Prosecute: a Jamaican Protocol as follows:
When considering the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings the first question to be determined is the sufficiency of evidence.
A prosecution should not be commenced or continued unless there is admissible, substantial and reliable evidence that a criminal offence known to the law has been committed by an identifiable person.
The proper test is whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction should proceedings be instituted.
This decision requires an evaluation of how strong the case is likely to be when presented at trial.
It is instructive in this particular circumstance to look at case law in guiding the narrative in this matter.
The celebrated legal decision of Galbraith is instructive and must be at the forefront of the Prosecution’s mind to direct their analysis of the legal variables that impact the case.
R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 ; 73 App Rep 124.
(1) if there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant, there is no difficulty. The judge will of course stop the case.
(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of an inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.
(a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case…..
The single question is whether there is sufficient credible, cogent and therefore reliable information that a court can act on to say that Ms. King’s hair was cut by the female officer.
I note that the only statement from a person who asserts that her hair was cut by the police is Ms. King.
Ms. King’s statement on several issues is contradicted in other evidentiary material on file, some of which are outlined below:
Firstly, she outlines the scenario surrounding her arrest which was previously at paragraphs 8 – 10, where she places herself in a taxi with other person under being pepper sprayed by the police.
This account is contradicted by the police who arrested her.
He states that she was seen along the roadway without her mask; the police asked her about her mask and the incident escalated to the point where, not only was she charged for Failing to wear a mask, but Disorderly Conduct and Abusive Language.
The account of witness number 4, who was present at the time of the incident, aligns with that of the arresting officer.
Ms. King states that when she went to court she had not been charged for failure to wear her mask; however, certified court documents from the Clarendon Parish Court revealed that she was indeed charged for the offences of Disorderly Conduct, Abusive Language and Failing to wear her mask in Public.
On the 22nd day of July, 2021, she pleaded guilty to the Petty Session offences and not guilty to Breaching the Disaster Risk Management Act. That case was slated for trial on the 23rd of November, 2021.
She further asserts that she didn’t know that she could pay the fine as this was not explained to her. This is inconsistent with the statement she gave to the police where she says she did not have the money to pay the fine and her mother, was not available to pay it.
(Ms. King was fined $3,000.00 or ten days imprisonment on the charge of Disorderly Conduct and also the on Abusive Language to which she had pleaded guilty)
This inconsistency is compounded by a discrepancy in her mother’s statement where her mother says that Ms. King told her that she was not fined but imprisoned.
The court documents have the name Candace King.
It is in Ms. King’s statement that she told the police her correct name, which is Nzinga Candace King, and they chose not to record it.
Ms. King states that she had shoulder length locks upon arriving at the Four Paths Police Station on the 22nd day of July, 2021 and prior to it being cut by the officer.
Her cell mate states that her hair was substantially the length as she described when she was brought to the cell; it should be noted that she claims in her statement that she was brought to the cell AFTER her hair was cut by the officer.
In her first statement given to the police Ms. King says the officer cut ‘all the long ones’ in reference to her locks, in a subsequent statement to INDECOM she stated that the officer ‘cut my hair that she was holding in a bunch’. In a further statement made to INDECOM she says that her hair was cut by the officer ‘from the root’.
The statements from prisoners in the lock-ups are that they observed her over the period of two days pulling the locks from her head; the female officer and the Inspector state that they made aware of this and went to the cell occupied by Ms. King and saw locks on the ground.
A statement from a school mate, witness number 3, is that Ms. King called her aside and told her that she had cut her hair. At no time did Ms. King tell this school friend that it was the police who cut her hair. Thereafter she constantly complained that she had cut her hair
In Ms. King’s statement to the police she did not mention that the District Constable had brought a scissor to the female officer to aid in the cutting of her hair; however, in her statement to the Independent Commission (INDECOM) taken seven days later she informed the INDECOM investigators of this incident.
Ms. King states that she “had no knowledge that [her] phone was on the cellblock or how it got there as when the police took my belongings and placed it on the bench before [the female officer] told me to go into the bathroom, I did not see my belongings since then”.
This does not accord with the statement of a cellmate who saw Ms. King on a call while in cell.
She told a classmate that ‘her baby’s father came to pay the money that the Judge charged her….on her way home police stopped the baby father’s car, searched it and [found] a gun….she and the baby’s father got locked up.
While they were locked up someone bring a video to the police station that shows the person that place[d] the gun in the car’
The prosecution has a duty to disclose to the defence all the material in its possession including those on which the Prosecution may rely.
Before the matter goes before a court, one would have to acknowledge the discrepant statements which undermines her credibility from persons who have no vested interest in the matter and totally undermines her complaint to the investigators.
Given the cumulative effect of the inconsistencies and discrepancies, this could be a basis for an investigation into creating public mischief on the part of Ms. King.
It is our view as a matter of law that the inconsistencies and discrepancies outlined would preclude as a matter of ethics any prosecution of this matter and, to be clear, we would not be usurping the function of the tribunal of fact who would address issues of credibility in a trial, but before prosecution commences there must be a level of cogency an credibility in the statement of a complainant which would oblige us to proffer an indictment.
That threshold has not been attained and there could be no reasonable prospect of conviction.
We would be ethically precluded from pursuing a prosecution given the totality of the greatly significantly damaging defects in this matter.
The principle seen in the first limb of Galbraith Case when applied here supports that there is insufficient evidentiary material to support Ms. King’s allegation that a crime has been committed.
Looking at the second limb of Galbraith which is also encapsulated in the Prosecutorial Protocol noted above; the Prosecution must consider whether the proposed information on which the court would be asked to rely, ‘is of a tenuous character, …due to ‘an inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence’.
The Prosecution’s file consists of statements from persons who directly contradict Ms. King in several material particular.
Taking into consideration the inconsistencies in Ms. King’s account and the discrepancies between her account and that of others persons that directly contradict Ms. King, the following questions must be asked:
Why are the circumstances of her arrest as reported by her, directly contradicted by the police who arrested her and her school mate who observed it?
Even if a credibility deficit is ascribed to the police, what malicious intent could be attributed to this school mate to tell this lie on Ms. King?
What reason would the police have to place the name Candice on the official documents? It is in the interest of the police to have her correct name on the record.
When she went to court, she could have indicated this to the court when she was being pleaded.
Ms. King says she was not told about the charge of failure to wear a mask when she went to court; the official record of the Court is that she pleaded not guilty to that offence and a trial date was set on the same day that the matters on which she pleaded guilty came before the court.
What basis could there be for this discrepancy.
Is it that she is suggesting that the Parish Judge, who would be the person endorsing the official record of the court was mistaken or indicating a falsehood.
Why would her mother say that Ms. King told her she was given a custodial sentence in contradiction to Ms. King’s account? Ms King said she was fined Six Thousand dollars or ten days’ imprisonment but it was not explained to her that she could pay the fine.
What reason would other inmates who, on the surface have no demonstrable interest to serve, say that they observed Ms. King pulling the hairs from her head? One may suggest that they may be seeking to curry favour with the police, but there is no evidential basis for that suggestion. Their statements were collected by both the police and INDECOM.
What explanation is there for her classmates, witnesses 3 & 4, to say that Ms. King had said she cut her hair?
Ms. King’s explanation is that anyone who says so is lying, however, here are other individuals with a version of events that accords closely to that of the inmates.
The classmates, on the face of it, do not have an interest to serve.
Ms. King asserted that the police damaged her phone, however, a classmate states that she told her that it was damaged by a woman who threw the phone at a child.
The placement of the locks recovered by the INDECOM team is also instructive. These were found on the ground outside of the vent leading from cell number 3 where Ms. King was housed; some were seen partially out of the vent. The reasonable explanation is that they were pushed through the vent from within cell number 3.
The statement of Ms. King is that her hair was cut inside the bathroom and that she collected a few locks before she was taken into the cell which she handed over to the police in the investigation of this matter. Based on the location of the hair, it is more probable that the hair was deposited from the cell in which Ms King was housed. Had the hair been cut in the bathroom, there is no plausible explanation for the hair getting outside of the vent other than it having been pushed through from cell number 3.
This bit of physical evidence again supports the account of the prisoners.
All these questions, based on the wealth of discrepancies and inconsistencies, raised from a – h was, on our direction, put her by INDECOM in the presence of her attorney and she responded in a statement dated the 28th of December, 2021, that ‘those persons are telling a lie’
The material submitted is replete with inconsistencies and discrepancies both of the major and minor variety.
The police accused of assaulting Ms. King deserves to have the submitted material undergo the same scrupulous assessment as would be done concerning any other individual in like circumstances and to have the legal standards and threshold applied.
It was stated in Re Kings Application. (1988) 40 WIR 15 that ‘…it cannot be accepted that a police officer should be charged and prosecuted… if a prima facie case is not made out.
It cannot be in the public interest that a police officer should be treated differently from a civilian in such matters’
The refrain of every judge on any giving her/his summation on a case is ‘it is the prosecution that has brought [the defendant] here, it is the prosecution who must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt’.
This is the criminal standard that must be met and discharged by the Prosecution.
The information contained in the material on file does not rise to the acceptable threshold that would oblige the prosecutorial authority to proffer an indictment as there would be no reasonable prospect of success.
The prosecution must be able to dispel any reasonable doubt raised during the course of a trial. This must come from the evidence that will be adduced.
This includes both viva voce and forensic evidence if it is available.
Where there are inconsistencies and discrepancies arising from what individuals say, then the forensic evidence will be examined to see if it lends any support to any of the versions submitted.
In this case specific details such as what implement, be it scissors or by hand, could cause the separation of Ms. King’s hair from her scalp is inconclusive. Where there is any doubt it has to be resolved in the favour of the defendant.
A credible witness is a person competent to give evidence, whose testimony can be believed and relied upon.
A credible witness’ testimony must be trustworthy, the witness must honestly relate the fact fully, without any intention to deceive, or suppress the truth.
In Jason Richards v R [2017] JMCA Crim. 5 where Haynes J states that ‘…the cumulative effect of…numerous inconsistencies in the evidence of the sole eye witness seriously undermined the cogency, credibility and reliability’ of the evidence of that witness.
As consistency is one test relevant to credibility, the inconsistencies must be examined closely to determine to what degree it affects the reliability of any evidence that may be given by Ms. King.
The several statements attributed to Ms. King, some of which are critical and goes to the root of the issue especially as it relates to whether the police cut her hair as she indicated.
Two different versions were seen in the submitted material and all the surrounding information does not support Ms. King’s version of events; her version is filled with inconsistencies.
In assessing the reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution in these circumstances, the Prosecution must be ministers of Justice as that is a function that is ascribed to us as a matter of law.
There would be no basis on which charges could be laid against the police officer.
This investigation was done by the Jamaica Constabulary Force and by INDECOM. We have been made aware that it was the JCF who handed the fruits of their labour to the Independent Commission.
The Commission then re-interviewed all the witnesses that made themselves available and carried out further investigations in the matter. This was not a joint investigative endeavour.
All statements collected were reviewed and considered together to form the basis of this opinion.
Statements on File
1. Nzinga King complainant, dated 2021/Aug/04, taken by INDECOM
2. Nzinga King dated 2021/Jul/27, taken by the JCF
3. Nzinga King dated 2021/Aug/3 taken by the JCF
4. Nzinga King dated 2021/Dec/28 taken by INDECOM
5. Redacted JP, witnessed the taking of Buccal swab from complainant
6. Shirley McIntosh mother of complainant dated 2021/Aug/04 taken by INDECOM
7. Shirley McIntosh mother of complainant dated 2021/Aug/03 taken by the JCF
8. Redacted witness/detainee dated 2021/Aug/04 taken by INDECOM
9. Redacted witness/detainee dated 2021/Aug/03 taken by the JCF
10. Redacted school mate dated 2021//Aug/04 taken by INDECOM
11. Redacted school mate dated 2021/Aug/11 taken by the JCF
12. Redacted grounds man dated 2021/Aug/02 taken by the JCF
13. Police officer – police at Four Paths P/S (focus of enquiry)
14. Police officer
15. Police officer police at Four Paths Police Station
16. Police officer
17. Police officer re Disorderly Conduct etc
18. Police officer on station guard duty at arrival of Ms. King to the P/S
19. Police officer assisted with the intake of prisoners on the 22nd
20. INDECOM Scene of Crime Examiner- did Buccal swab re King
21. INDECOM SOC Examiner – photographed Four Paths P/S
22. INDECOM took hair to the lab
23. INDECOM investigator
24. INDECOM
25. INDECOM
26. INDECOM investigator
Documents on File
1. Number one information re the offences of Disorderly Conduct
2. Number one information re the offences of Abusive Language
3. Number one information re the offences of Breach of the Disaster Risk Management Act
4. INDECOM – Q & A with Cpl. A. Mitchell-Lewis
5. INDECOM – Q & A with Insp. M. Colquhoun
6. Medical certificate of Ms. King dated the 29th of June, 2021
7. Letter requesting copy of file re charges against Candace King
8. Certified copy of I/O Karon Chandler’s statement
9. Copy of ‘police duty roster’
10. Copy of ‘Four Paths Station Diary’
11. Copy of ‘Prisoner in Custody Book’
12. Copy of ‘Prisoner Visit Book’
13. Audio CD interview re Cpl. Mitchell-Lewis
14. Audio CD interview re Insp. M. Colquhoun
15. CD containing photographs taken at Four Paths Police Station 2021/Aug/04
16. CD containing photographs taken at Four Paths Police Station 2021/Sept/01
17. Copy of Nzinga King’s birth certificate
18. Receipt from the Institute of Forensic Science & Legal Medicine
Follow The Gleaner on Twitter and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at [email protected] or [email protected]
