This afternoon, Police Commissioner Chester Williams was asked about the comments that prominent members of the Opposition, UDP, made yesterday in their extended press conference.
You'll remember how the UDP was accusing police of affording Deputy Mayor Micah Goodin preferential treatment when he was being investigated for his proximity to the shooting involving his sideman, Tarique James. You'll remember that former Attorney General Michael Peyrefitte suggested that the case has "markings of a joint enterprise" and that police should "do what they always do; charge everybody and sort it out later."
Here's how Williams strongly rebutted that view this evening:
Chester Williams - Commissioner of Police
"There should be a charge for misrepresenting the law and to trying to mislead people because the truth be told, the person who made that comment yesterday is a senior attorney and for him to say that if I get in your vehicle and I have a gun on me and I fire my gun, you responsible and should be charged for joint enterprise. I beg to wonder now if he really understands what joint enterprise is in law. Certainly when it comes to joint enterprise it simply means that a group of person or organized group would have been acting together to carry out some criminal activity and you would only apply joint enterprise for example if you and I go out to commit a crime and let's say for example we agree that we were only going to do a robbery, I know you have a gun on you, the law is that I ought to have contemplated the fact that you had a gun, if things get tight, you might use the gun. In a situation like that now, we go and carry out the robbery, things get tight, you use the gun, you fire it, you kill the man. In any event, in those circumstances that is joint enterprise, I would be held liable. Based on what was said, there was argument, Micah Goodin intervened to prevent the argument. He got into his vehicle along with his colleagues who were with him, he drove off. It is clear that there was no communication before between them to say, that they were going there to do xyz and secondly that when things get hot, he jumped in his vehicle along with his crowd and drove off. Now if one member of his team took out a gun and fired, how could he be held liable for it? It's not like he was the one that told the man, take out your gun and fire at them, no, there is no evidence to suggest that. So, how could my senior at bar even allude to the fact that in a case like that, the police should charge everybody, then he would be the same one to want to sue to say that we unlawful imprison people, we manage to prosecute people that we don't have evidence against."
