MANCHESTER, Jamaica—Radcliffe Frazer, a farmer who was charged with unlawful possession of ammunition, was on Monday acquitted in the Manchester Parish Court after Senior Parish Judge Anneil Coote-Guinness upheld a no-case submission advanced by his attorneys, Rodain Richardson and Amy Dunkley of Richardson Law Chambers.

The matter arose from a police operation conducted in Manchester on November 4, 2024, during which officers reportedly stopped and searched a motor vehicle in which Frazer was travelling as a passenger.

During the search, police reportedly discovered ammunition concealed among items found in the vehicle. Frazer and the driver were subsequently arrested and jointly charged in connection with the discovery.

Frazer maintained that he had no knowledge of the ammunition and denied having possession, custody or control of the items allegedly recovered.

At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defence advanced a no-case submission, contending that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the essential elements of the offence.

The defence challenged the prosecution’s case on several grounds, including material inconsistencies in the investigating officer’s testimony, the absence of corroborative evidence, and significant shortcomings in the investigative process.

Central to the defence’s submissions was the prosecution’s failure to establish that Frazer had actual physical custody, care or control of the ammunition, or the requisite knowledge of its existence.

Attorney-at-Law Rodain Richardson, who led the defence alongside fellow counsel Amy Dunkley, explained that the weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence went beyond mere inconsistencies and struck at the very foundation of the charge.

“The prosecution bears the burden of establishing the essential elements of the offence. In this case, the evidence was inherently weak and failed to demonstrate that our client had possession, custody or control of the ammunition, or even knowledge of its existence. Suspicion, however strongly held, cannot replace evidence. Our client ought never to have been called upon to answer a case that had not been properly established,” Richardson stated.

The defence further highlighted the investigating officer’s failure to undertake critical investigative steps which could have assisted in establishing the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence. These omissions, coupled with inconsistencies in the evidence presented, substantially undermined the prosecution’s case.

Richardson emphasised that the outcome reinforces the importance of thorough police investigations and the fundamental principles governing the administration of criminal justice.

“An allegation is not proof of guilt. Investigations must be conducted thoroughly, and the evidence presented must satisfy the requirements of the law. Where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case, the court has a duty to ensure that an accused person is not improperly called upon to defend himself. That is precisely what occurred in this matter,” he added.

In her ruling on Monday, October 12, Coote-Guinness upheld the submission, discharged Frazer and entered a formal verdict of not guilty.

While the proceedings against Frazer have concluded, the case against his co-accused, Prince Harze, who is represented by attorney-at-law Cecil J Mitchell, remains before the Manchester Parish Court.