Surprising turn in perverting course of justice trial
THE perverting the course of justice trial involving businessman Bruce Bicknell and Senior Superintendent James Forbes took a surprising turn yesterday when the Crown witness, Sgt Jubert Llewellyn, abandoned a second statement he gave the police.
In abandoning the statement, under cross-examination by Queen’s Counsel K D Knight, Llewellyn conceded that Bicknell never told him during a traffic stop on April 9, 2012 that the two $1,000-notes among motor vehicle documents were for him (Llewellyn) to not issue him a ticket for speeding along the Sir Florizel Glasspole Boulevard in East Kingston.
He agreed with Knight that the said statement, which he gave on August 22, was “mixed up” and that the chronology of events was misleading as it related to the point at which Llewellyn said he saw the money. Llewellyn said, however, that he didn’t deliberately change the chronology of events in the second statement.
The development comes on a day when Llewellyn — who was on a second day in the witness box in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court — made, under cross-examination, some concessions key to the prosecution’s case.
Among the concessions Llewellyn made, is that he had expressed, on two separate occasions, that he wasn’t certain if Bicknell was trying to bribe him. The two occasions, he said, occurred during a meeting with former police commissioner Lucius Thomas and later in the presence of Sergeant Dylan Lewis, who charged Bicknell with bribery.
Llewellyn conceded also that nothing unlawful took place at an April 13, 2012 meeting at Forbes’ office where it was agreed that the bribery charge against Bicknell would be dropped and that the businessman wouldn’t bring suit against him or Lewis.
Before Knight started his examination of Llewellyn, who for a second day was sporting a bullet-proof vest, the cop testified during examination-in-chief that prior to the meeting at Forbes’ Oxford Road office in St Andrew, he was concerned about how such a meeting would affect his and Forbes’ career.
Asked by prosecutor Tracy-Ann Johnson why he was concerned, Llewellyn said, “As a result, my senior colleague is in the dock. Those were some of the repercussions I was concerned about.”
Bicknell didn’t show up for court on the bribery charge, as scheduled, as a result of the meeting.
But when Knight, who along with Peter Champagnie appears for Bicknell, questioned Llewellyn about the meeting, he said that he was satisfied at the end that nothing “improper”, “unlawful” and “corrupt” occurred and that there was no breach of the Jamaica Constabulary Force’s (JCF) policy. He said, too, that Bicknell didn’t attempt to bribe, make him any offer or threaten him in any way during the meeting.
Llewellyn was also questioned on his evidence that he was uncertain if Bicknell was trying to bribe him. Regarding this, Knight asked if, being a “man of fairness”, it would be fair for him to prosecute a citizen if he was uncertain if that person committed an offence. “No sir, it wouldn’t be fair,” Llewellyn responded.
In response to another question from Knight, Llewellyn agreed that being a fair-minded man, he would have sought to conclude the matter in a way that wasn’t “corrupt”, “unlawful” or a “breach of JCF policy”.
Knight will today continue his examination of Llewellyn.
Forbes is represented by Queen’s Counsel Jacqueline Samuels-Brown and Linda Wright.