Press Release Re R v Gary Thomas Et Al for Murder of Kentucky Kid Hill (1)

8/10/2019 Press Release Re R v Gary Thomas Et Al for Murder of Kentucky Kid Hill (1)

1/5

Prepared by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Page 1

14th

October 2014

MEDIA RELEASE

RE: R v Gary Thomas, Uriel Anderson, Norval Warren, Donovan Brown and

Marvia Morgan for Murder (of Robert Kentucky Kid Hill)

1.

A formal verdict of Not Guilty was returned today by a twelve man jury in respect of

all five (5) persons accused of the murder of Robert Hill when the learned trial judge,

Mrs. Justice Carol Lawrence-Beswick directed them after the Crownrepresented by

myself and a Deputy DPPoffered no evidence against the accused persons

represented by Mrs. Valerie Neita-Robertson, Mrs. Carolyn Reid-Cameron, Mr. Peter

Champagnie, Mrs. Jacqueline Samuels-Brown Q.C., and Mr. Hugh Faulkner. Herein

follow the reasons for this decision.

Background

2. The matter was originally investigated by the Bureau of Special Investigations (BSI) and

thereafter by the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM). A file was

submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) for a ruling.

Following a ruling dated the 9th

June 2010 indicating that no one be criminally charged,

the file was referred to the Coroners Court for an Inquest into the circumstances that led

to the death of Robert Hill.

3. The Coroners Inquest commenced on the 25th

November 2011 and concluded on the 24th

July 2014, after sixteen (16) witnesses deponed and were examined by several attorneys

as well as the Coroner, in the presence of a jury. The jury found that all five (5) accused

persons were criminally responsible for the death of Robert Hill. The accused personscomprised of three (3) police officers, a male civilian (the cousin of the deceased) and a

female civilian (former neighbour of the deceased).

4. Following the Inquest, a warrant was prepared by the Coroner for all five (5) accused

persons to be charged for murder; the DPP prepared the indictment as obligated so to do

under the Coroners Act.

P.O. BOX 633

KINGSTON

JAMAICA

ANY REPLY OR SUBSEQUENT REFERENCETO THIS COMMUNICATION SHOULD BEADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC

PROSECUTIONS AND NOT TO ANYOFFICER BY NAME:-

TELEPHONE: 922-6321-5

TELE. FAX: (876) 922-4318


2/5


Allegations

5. The allegations were that on the 8th

December 2009, the three (3) police officers were

dispatched by a senior officer to retrieve an illegal firearm from the now deceased, who

lived at Ivy Green Mews, St. Andrew.

6.

Upon their arrival at approximately 9:10 pm, a man, the now deceased, was seen coming

from the front of a vehicle parked on the premises. Constable Thomas alighted from the

service vehicle followed by the Constable Warren. Corporal Anderson had not yet exited

the vehicle. Constable Thomas called out Police! whereupon the man pointed a firearm

in the direction of the police and opened fire on the police party. Both Constables

Thomas and Warren returned fire; Corporal Anderson did not discharge his firearm. The

deceased, having been shot, was approached and the firearm retrieved by the police. He

was taken to the Kingston Public Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

7.

The incriminated officers submitted their firearms for ballistics testing and also submittedto gunshot residue (GSR) swabbing. The hands of the deceased were also swabbed for

GSR and the firearm recovered from him was also submitted for ballistics testing.

8. On the 15th

December 2009, Donovan Brown, the fourth named accused, gave his first

written statement in relation to the incident, indicating that two weeks before the incident

he had visited Robert Hill at his home when Hill showed him a gun and informed him of

a particular negative intent.

9. Thereafter, Brown contacted Crime Stop and reported the existence of the gun to the

telephone responder. The arrangements made during that telephone call regardingrecovery of the gun never materialized. By the 7

th December, he had made additional

contact with 119 and the Cross Roads Police. On that day he got a number from another

cousinswife which held the promise of a confidential handling of the matter.

10.On the 8th

December, Hill visited him and made certain assertions regarding the polices

inability to find the secreted firearm. Consequently, Brown renewed his efforts to contact

the police.

11. According to Brown, at the time of the incident on the 8th

December, Hill was still in

possession of the illegal firearm. He observed him walk in the direction of his parked van

at the same time police officers drove on to his premises.

12.However, on the 4th

April 2014, almost 5 months after he had deposed in the Coroners

Inquest, Brown gave a statement to INDECOM in which it was observed that material

changes and omissions were made to his first statement to BSI, the initial investigators.


3/5


13.In relation to the female accused, Marvia Morgan, her statement had revealed a

perception that she was the subject of unwelcomed affections from the deceased, which

rose to her being stalked. She made several reports to the police. Up to the time of his

death the situation concerning Mr. Hill remained unresolved. She was home the evening

he met his unfortunate demise.

Post Mortem Examination Report

14.The Post Mortem Examination Report of Dr. Dinesh Rao disclosed two gunshot injuries

to the deceased: the fatal injury, wound number one, present over the front of the right

shoulder, and wound number two, present over the lateral (side) aspect of the hip. Dr.

Rao deponed at the Inquest that, It was most likely the bullet in wound number one

(the fatal wound) was fired with the deceased facing the shooter

Forensic Report15.The Forensic Certificate of Ms. Marcia Dunbar which certified the results of the

swabbing of the deceaseds hands disclosed the presence of gunshot residue at trace

levels on the front of the right hand and back of the left hand. At the Inquest Ms. Dunbar

deponed that, I would not saythat based on my scientif ic test, the resul ts do not

suggest that the dead individual did not fire a firearm. He could have fired a

firearm

Ballistics Report

16.Government Ballistics Expert Superintendent Sydney Porteous (Retd.) examined the

three (3) service weapons assigned to the three (3) officers along with the .38 SpecialSmith and Wesson revolver recovered from the deceased. Also examined were two (2)

.38 special expended and three (3) unexpended cartridges. Upon examination and testing

the expert found that the unexpended cartridges were .38 special cartridges and the

expended cartridges were fired from the .38 revolver which was in good working

condition. When questioned about his findings regarding the .38 revolver recovered from

Robert Hill he deponed, it would be fair to say that this firearm was fired at least

twice.

17.At the Inquest, the three (3) officers remained resolute in their account of defending

themselves from an attack by Kentucky Kid. Brown, in his deposition, was consistent

with his original statement asserting previous knowledge of the deceaseds illegal

possession of a firearm. Morgan did not depone at the Inquest.


4/5


18.Pursuant to our constitutional responsibilities to assess the viability of prosecuting a

criminal case, we critically examined the content of the statements, the content of the

Inquest depositions, and the law on murder. In so doing we found that not only would it

have been impossible to mount a viable case, it would have been unethical to do so as a

prosecutor, given our appreciation of the available material and the law. For clarity, the

following is noted:

The only witnesses to fact, on what would form the Crowns case, would have

been the accused. There would be no witnesses as to fact for the prosecution.

The legal issue of self defensecould not be negatived on the Crowns caseas

there was no evidence to contradict the accounts of the accused persons and the

independent scientific evidence.

The independent scientific evidence supported the accounts given by the policeand in all the circumstances did not admit of any other conclusion.

Efforts to discredit the accused persons at the Inquest did not unearth any new

material/evidence to support a viable case of murder.

There are no witnesses or any other material rising above suspicion supporting a

conspiracy to murder Robert Hill or evidence of murder.

19.

We note that it was some five (5) months after Mr. Brown had completed his depositionat the Inquest that he gave a statement to INDECOM dated the 4th

April 2014 asserting

another version, suggesting the police would have had no reason to visit the home of the

deceased on the 8th

December 2009. However, in these circumstances, without any

explanation for the grave discrepancies and departure from his original account, the

issues surrounding his credibility would have been almost impossible to overcome.

20.We will always pay due regard and respect to other stakeholders in the administration of

justice, including the Coroner and the jury. However, as prosecutors we have an ethical

duty and stated principles by which we must abide when deciding to go forward with or

end a prosecution. To act otherwise, in circumstances such as these, would have been adereliction of our duty.


5/5


21.Although we are sensitive to the sentiments of the public, our professional decision as

prosecutors has to be unfettered by prejudice or sympathy. It was our clear duty in these

circumstances to offer no evidence in respect of each accused.

22.

I trust that the issues have been properly illuminated.

Sincerely,

Paula V. Llewellyn, Q.C.

Director of Public Prosecutions

Press Release Re R v Gary Thomas Et Al for Murder of Kentucky Kid Hill (1)

Documents

Transcript of Press Release Re R v Gary Thomas Et Al for Murder of Kentucky Kid Hill (1)