The six policemen who were charged with the murder of seven young men in Braeton, St Catherine in March 2001 were freed in the Home Circuit Court yesterday after the trial judge determined that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima-facie case against the cops.

“There was no evidence that the crown had brought to the trial that could leave you in a state of mind where you could feel sure that the killings were not lawful self-defence,” Justice Donald McIntosh told the 12-member jury before instructing them to return a not guilty verdict.

The case against the policemen – Sergeant Raymond Miller, Corporal Linroy Edwards and constables Leighton Bucknor, Wayne Constantine, Miguel Ebanks and Devon Bernard – basically collapsed on the evidence of four prosecution witnesses who gave conflicting testimony of how the seven youths were killed. In fact, the testimony of one prosecution witness supported the defence’s claim that the seven youths were killed in a shoot-out.

Another witness, Delroy Ledley, was discredited yesterday when the court visited the death scene – 1088 Fifth Seal Way – where it was demonstrated that he was not in a position to see what he told the court he saw on the morning of March 14, 2001. Ledley had testified that the seven youths were shot while in the hands of the police in the pathway.

After the court returned from the death scene, or the locus in quo, the prosecution conceded that there was no evidence led to connect Constable Bernard to the shootings and he was freed.

At that point, defence attorney Patrick Atkinson made a no-case submission on behalf of the other five cops. However, Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewelyn, who marshalled the evidence, submitted that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide.

But Justice McIntosh disagreed, and said that according to the evidence, shots were fired and the police returned the fire, killing the persons who had shot at them. He reminded the jury that under the law, if a person believes he is being attacked he can use such force as he believes necessary to defend himself. He then directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty for the other five cops.

More than 60 cops from the now disbanded Crime Management Unit (CMU) and the Special Anti-Crime Task Force, led by Senior Superintendent Reneto Adams, went to 1088 Fifth Seal Way at about 3:30 am on March 14, 2001 on a special operation in search of wanted men.

Police claimed that when they reached Seal Way they were met by gunfire from the house which had no light. They returned the fire, killing the seven youths:

. Reagon Beckford, 14;

. Christopher Grant, 17;

. Dane White, 19;

. Tamoya Wilson, 20;

. Andre Virgo, 20;

. Lancebert Clarke, 19; and

. Curtis Smith, 20.

The police claimed that four guns, including the police revolver used in the daring daylight killing of a policeman, a retired customs officer who was visiting a friend, and the injuring of a woman at the Above Rocks Police Station weeks earlier, were seized at the house.

Police also implicated some of the Braeton Seven in the killing, hours before their own deaths, of school principal Keith Morris. He was chased and shot in the back while fleeing a hold-up at a bar where he was watching a domino game.

The police had insisted that the seven died in a gunbattle, but human rights activists, including Amnesty International, said that they were murdered.

A coroners jury could not decide if anyone was criminally responsible for the deaths, but the DPP later ruled that the policemen be charged with murder.

Yesterday, Llewelyn told the Observer that in submitting to the court that there was a case to answer, the prosecution took the view that Ledley’s testimony had drawn the inference that the youths had surrendered. She said physical evidence at the scene showed that over 20 gunshots hit the house from outside, while only five came from inside the house to outside.

“I would suggest that at some time the seven men would have surrendered, but the judge disagreed,” she said. The prosecution, she said, had discharged its duty to the public interest without fear or favour as it was obligated to do. She also said that the prosecution’s case could only be as good as the evidence provided by witnesses.

Yesterday, Atkinson said one disappointment he had was that the prosecution did not take the initiative to offer no further evidence when it became clear that their own evidence did not support their contention.

He added: “I hope people are aware that social agitation and demonstrations which seek to pressure agencies of justice can only interfere with the purity of the justice system. But thankfully, in this case justice has triumphed. Justice was truly served by the decision of the court.”