The lawyer representing two of the accused in the murder trial of six policemen in the Supreme Court has accused key prosecution witness Floyd Green of colluding with the Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom) to bring the case against the cops.

Sergeant Simroy Mott, Corporal Donovan Fullerton and constables Orandy Rose, Andrew Smith, Sheldon Richards and Richard Lynch are on trial for murder in relation to the January 12, 2013 shooting on Arcadia Drive in St Andrew that claimed the lives of Matthew Lee, Mark Allen and Ucliffe Dyer.

Attorney Hugh Wildman, who represents Fullerton and Rose, made the suggestion of collusion on Wednesday during cross-examination of Green, who had earlier in the trial testified that he had witnessed the triple fatal shooting of the three unarmed men from a nearby apartment window.

READ: ‘Shots started to ring out’ – Politician gives chilling account of triple fatal police shooting

“I’m suggesting to you that this case here is a conspiracy between you and Indecom to convict these innocent police officers,” Wildman said, to immediate heated response from Green, indicating there was “absolutely no way” he would conspire with anyone, including Indecom.

When Wildman went further to describe the case as a “concocted case” and suggest to Green that he had never been present at the scene of the murder, the senior politician retorted that the claim was nonsensical.

“I have not concocted a story. I would have indicated what I saw. Again, it makes no sense to suggest there’s a conspiracy. I do not know the officers, any one of them. Not even one. So there can be no conspiracy against unknown,” he said.

The prosecution also objected to the suggestion, describing it as illogical and pointed to the ruling made by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to charge the men.

In response, Presiding Judge Justice Sonia Bertram Linton reminded the prosecution that the defence had the right to challenge the witness’ integrity, and the witness had a right to respond, with a tribunal of fact to make the final decision on issues raised.

During the course of the cross-examination, Green’s account of the incident was challenged as Wildman went over the politician’s testimony.

Matthew Lee, one of the men killed in the police shooting on Arcadia Drive in St Andrew on Saturday, January 12, 2013.

In posing questions which he said related to the integrity of the witness, Wildman pointed to Green’s 2021 resignation as agriculture minister, following the release of a video showing him at a gathering on a “no-movement day”, a measure used to combat the spread of COVID-19 during the pandemic.

“During COVID, you were disciplined for breaching COVID law, am I correct?” Wildman asked.

Green replied that this was incorrect.

“I…resigned from the Cabinet because there was a ‘no-movement day’ in force… Even though I was, by law, allowed to move on a ‘no-movement day’, there is a fact that what would have transpired, what would have been published, even though it was not illegal… it amounted to the level of me not being in adherence with the thinking, with the position of the government and the prime minister at the time,” Green said.

The minister added that, in light of this, he felt resigning was the appropriate course of action.

When Wildman went further into the topic, the defence objected on the basis of the relevance of the questions, but the defence lawyer insisted that it had implications on the integrity and bias of the witness.

He was allowed to continue, and when Green said the DPP had sent back a ruling that there were no grounds to charge him, Wildman suggested that this decision was biased.

“Mr Green, I am suggesting to you, that part of that ruling from the DPP was part of the curry favouring…” he said.
Green rubbished the suggestion as “inaccurate, false, misguided, illogical [and] nonsensical”.

“I do not know if the DPP was up for any consideration at the time at all. There was no issue at the time in relation to her contract,” Green said, adding that he did what he thought was honourable by resigning.

Wildman also queried the circumstances in which Green had been interviewed by Indecom, questioning why he had decided to give a statement to the body four years after witnessing the incident and writing an anonymous letter to them.

“Having seen the incident clearly, I wondered like anyone else, should I get involved any at all?” Green said.

Green, who had previously expressed fear as an inhibitor in speaking up about the incident, said, to soothe his conscience and do his civic duty, having witnessed the killing, he wrote the anonymous letter and thought that would be the end of his involvement.

“Now Indecom came to me and said are you the one who had sent the anonymous letter?” Green revealed.

He added that his only choices were either to lie and continue living his regular life, which would have been the “easier course” as he would not have to be involved in the trial and have his integrity questioned.

However, he said he decided to give the statement.

Green noted that by this time, also, he was a minister with a security detail, suggesting that it alleviated the fear factor.

Responding to multiple questions about whether he had discussed the issue with Indecom investigators before his statement was committed to writing, Green said: “There was no discussion in relation to the matter, save and except asking me what would have happened to put together a statement.”

A large swath of time was spent on whether Green knew the actual day that the event had occurred. Wildman began by questioning the witness on whether he had gone to church on the Sunday that the killings took place. When Green responded that he had not, Wildman said, “But the incident occurred on a Saturday.”

Wildman then reminded Green that he had testified that the incident occurred on a Sunday. The attorney and witness returned to this point at several times throughout the cross examination with Green indicating he recalled a Sunday.

“The fact that you are not sure whether it was a Saturday or a Sunday, then I don’t know why we are here,” Wildman said.

The incident took place on Saturday, January 12, 2013.

“You are coming here to give evidence for the crown in a most important matter…. am I correct, sir that…the day when the incident occurred would be of paramount importance to you?” asked the attorney.

In response to Wildman, Green insisted that he had made note of the date that the incident occurred not necessarily the day, reminding the attorney that it had been 13 years, and said that what was of importance is where he was at the time and what he saw.

He said: “Whether it is Saturday, Sunday, Monday, I don’t think that is of paramount importance. What is of paramount importance was… Did I see what I saw? I was home at the time. I saw what I saw.”

The prosecution objected to the questioning, indicating that if there was a misstatement regarding the day that the incident occurred, it was not material.

Wildman said the fact that the witness was unable to state the exact day of the week the incident took place had serious implications for the court.

Bertram Linton stepped in and indicated that the issue would also be decided on by a tribunal of fact who would make a decision on the witness’ credibility.