THE prosecution’s main witness yesterday admitted that he had “jumped to the wrong conclusion” in assuming that businessman Bruce Bicknell was trying to bribe him and that he made an error in having him arrested.

Sergeant Jubert Llewellyn testified, under cross-examination from Queen’s Counsel Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, that he wanted to correct the error of April 9, 2012 and hence his meeting with Senior Superintendent James Forbes on April 13, 2012.

“The meeting at Mr Forbes’ office occurred because you had jumped to a conclusion and made an error?”

“Yes,” Llewellyn said.

“You wanted to correct the error without backlash?” Samuels-Brown asked.

“Correct,” Llewellyn said.”

That meeting — which Llewellyn said was proposed by Forbes three days after Bicknell’s ticketing for speeding along the Sir Florizel Glasspole Boulevard in East Kingston and his subsequent arrest for bribery — resulted in the senior cop and the businessman being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Llewellyn, who is assigned to the Police Traffic Headquarters at Elletson Road in East Kingston, testified in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court on Monday that Forbes told him that the commissioner was aware of the meeting when he (Llewellyn) enquired about a possible backlash. Llewellyn testified then that at the meeting it was agreed that Bicknell would not be prosecuted on the bribery matter and that Bicknell would bring no lawsuit against himself and arresting officer Sergeant Dylan Lewis.

He said also that at that meeting Forbes gave back Bicknell the two $1,000 notes that were being held as evidence against Bicknell.

On Wednesday, Llewellyn testified, under cross examination from Queen’s Counsel K D Knight, that he was satisfied that at the end of the meeting nothing unlawful, improper and corrupt had occurred, and that no bribe was offered there.

Yesterday, Llewellyn agreed, under cross-examination from Samuels-Brown, that it was against the spirit and provision of the rules of the Jamaica Constabulary Force for an officer to make a mistake and proceed to court even when there is no evidence to support the charge.

He agreed, too, that it would be a waste of constabulary’s resources. Llewellyn also agreed with Samuels-Brown that he was guided by “all those things” during his meeting with Forbes, Bicknell, Lewis and a Mr McConnell at Forbes’ Oxford Road office in St Andrew.

On Wednesday, while being cross-examined by Knight, Llewellyn abandoned a second statement that he had given to the police in the matter on August 22, 2012 because it clashed with a first statement and contained misleading chronology of events of April 9.

Yesterday, Llewellyn told Samuels-Brown that the circumstances under which he gave that statement was more akin to duress. He said his superior, Senior Superintendent Radcliffe Lewis, directed him to give the statement because the director of public prosecution had called to say the file was being recompiled and that it was needed.

He testified moments earlier that he and Sergeant Lewis had expressed concerns about the methodology being used by the Anti-Corruption Branch in collecting his first statement on April 2, 2012.

Before Samuels-Brown started her examination of Llewellyn, the sergeant said under cross-examination from Knight that he was surprised that phone records didn’t show that MP Daryl Vaz had called him in relation to the matter as he had testified. In light of this he said he was prepared to accept that Vaz never called him on April 9, 2012 or at any time.

Vaz is to be tried on allegations that he breached the Corruption Prevention Act arising out of his alleged involvement in the matter.

Samuels-Brown is to continue her examination of Llewellyn when the matter continues on July 3.