R v Jahmiko Trott
| Jurisdiction | Bermuda |
| Judge | C Greaves, J |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] SC Bda 20 Crim |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bermuda) |
| Date | 23 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 2017 No. 27 |
[2018] SC (Bda) 20 Crim
In The Supreme Court of Bermuda
C Greaves, J
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 2017 No. 27
C Richardson for the defendant
C Mahoney for the Crown
Criminal law-Police and Criminal evidence Act-Code D-admission of Police video recognition evidence.
On 14 th May 2017 the Complainant was enjoying Mother's Day with his cousin in an apartment in the Court Street area. A gunman said to be the Defendant, Mr Trott, embarked upon that house, demanded to be let in and pursued the complainant, who escaped from the house onto the street. There, the two engaged in a scuffle. Several shots were let off. Another person said to be the Co-defendant, Mr Burgess, joined the melee. The Complainant escaped and fled to the police station where he made a report and in video audio interviews recorded by DC Donawa and others named the Defendant Trott as the gun man and Mr Burgess as his assister.
As a result one of the interviewing officers DC Mathurin put out a lookout by police intranet for the arrest of the Defendant Trott and shortly after, Mr Burgess as well.
CCTV showing the events on the street were recovered from two nearby establishments very shortly after. Both defendants were arrested shortly after and charged.
Shortly before the trial the Complainant's cousin came forward and gave a statement to the police and evidence during the trial identifying both defendants by way of recognition and without an opportunity firstly to view the CCTV or apparently to have discussions with the complainant who was apparently in safe keeping since the incident.
It may be helpful to refer to the statements of DC Roberts and PC Hart.
Roberts said that on 20 th July 2017 he was asked by D/Sgt Smith to conduct a CCTV recognition procedure with PC Hart.
He explained the process to her, informing her, what place the CCTV referenced and that should she recognise anyone she should state that and how she was able to do so.
Present were DCs Sabean, the operator and Donawa, note taker.
Hart identified Jahmiko Trott and answered questions Roberts contemporaneously wrote down. Those answers are in the attached forms.
In respect of the first viewing in Part A, entitled, to be completed before the viewing, he wrote down yes to the question whether she knew the identity of the suspect and no, to the following question whether she was given any information about the name or identity of the suspect.
Those two answers are prima facie contradictory and defence counsel complained that the presence of DC Donawa reasonably lead to an inference, the burden of disproval laying upon the Crown, that Hart might have been influenced by her. The answers were likewise in the viewing of the second CCTV form A.
It appears to me however that those notations might not have been answers given by PC Hart but were entries written down by D/Sgt Roberts likely given to him by D/Sgt Smith prior to commencement of the viewing. I think I am able to say that because of the heading of the form A which is to be filled in before the commencement of the viewing.
Even if I am incorrect on that point I do not at this point consider that apparent conflict to be fatal. I expect that it will be fully explained before a jury if that time comes and can or would be followed by a proper direction.
In part B, entitled, to be completed during the viewing. The officer recorded the several persons PC Hart identified and the reasons for such identification.
She recognised someone she said looks like Jahmeko Trott, from his facial hair, bone structure in his face. She said she had known him a long time-only met him earlier this year, 6 months, not in her capacity of work but that his sister and one of her close friends went to school together and she met him in a social setting in the beginning of the year.
She described what he was wearing, including his distressed jeans, dark sneakers, skin tone and recognised the area as the junction of Curving Ave and King Street.
She said she has seen him once a week in her work capacity as a patrol officer on Front Street, Court Street, and she would get a good look at him.
She described him as 5′ 10″–11″. She sees him both day and night time. And when she speaks to him it's less than a minute, Hi.
She said she saw him earlier that day on Mother's Day at Hamilton Princess in the parking lot, Mother's Day 14 th May 2017. He was wearing button up shirt or polo shirt, dress pants and was with Manai Roberts Jnr.
In the second viewing from camera 2, second clip she referred to a man in a hoodie running across the street and is recorded as saying, “It resembles Jahmiko Trots clothing I saw from camera 6 from King St/Curving Ave.” then she referred to this Jahmiko Trott fighting with an unknown man and recognised another man as Troy Burgess joining in.
PC Hart in her statement dated 20/7/17 said, before viewing the CCTV Roberts completed the Part A and when asked, she stated she had not been told what footage she would be shown.
She viewed camera 6 and observed a male walking along Curving Ave onto King Street she recognised to be Jahmiko Trot based on his facial hair and bone structure.
She repeated her descriptions, sightings etc. and went on to refer to the other persons she also identified and why.
This is an application by counsel for the defendant Trott to exclude certain recognition evidence sought to be given on the part of the prosecution to be given by Officer PC Hart who viewed some CCTV footage of the events in this case and purported to recognise the defendant.
Defence counsel submitted that that recognition was obtained in breach of the PACE Code in respect of the unfair manner in which it was obtained and therefore it should be rendered unreliable.
He argued that the events in this case occurred on 14 th May 2017. The next day the defendant was arrested and his co-defendant likewise a few days after. This was a well-publicised matter. The CCTV footage was acquired by the police by the day after the event.
It was not until two months later, namely, 19 th or 20 th July 2017 that the officer was purportedly invited to and did view the CCTV under supervision of D/Sgt Roberts and purported to recognise the defendant Trott whilst one of the investigating officers, DC Donawa who interviewed the virtual complainant within hours of the event, and knew the complainant identified the defendant as the person who attempted to kill him sat in the same room with the witness DC Hart whilst she was reviewing the CCTV.
...To continue reading
Request your trial