KINGSTON, Jamaica — A man was acquitted of gun related charges in the Supreme Court, Gun Court Division, following a five-day trial before presiding judge Justice Tara Carr.

Oshane Hayles, had been charged with illegal possession of a firearm, illegal possession of ammunition and two counts of assault at common law arising from an alleged confrontation with members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF).

“This judgment reaffirms that every citizen is presumed innocent unless and until the Crown proves otherwise. Once the officers were cross-examined, the evidence simply could not stand. The law required acquittal, and the court applied it faithfully. I encourage all Jamaicans to stay far away from a life of crime and live productively, freedom is a gift, and we must use it to build, not destroy,” said Hayles’ attorney Rodain Richardson.

According to the prosecution, police officers claimed to have seen a man in a light-coloured shirt and jeans running through a volatile community at night with a firearm in his waistband. They alleged that the man drew the weapon and pointed it at them, after which he was shot, fell and the firearm was recovered nearby. The defence rejected that account entirely.

During cross-examination, Richardson exposed extensive contradictions between the two arresting officers. According to Richardson, the officers’ evidence differed on whether the area was lit or dark, whether a flashlight was needed, how long the accused was allegedly seen, where the gun was supposedly found, and what was said at the scene.

He said at one point, an officer was confronted with his own prior written statement and conceded that a central part of his testimony, given to strengthen the prosecution’s case, was untrue. Justice Carr noted these inconsistencies and stated that she did not find the officers truthful or reliable on key issues.

The forensic evidence further undermined the prosecution. DNA swabs taken from the pistol revealed a mixture of contributors, including a male, but formally excluded Hayles. There were no fingerprints, no sweat or biological transfer, and no fibres connecting the accused to the firearm.

Justice Carr questioned how someone who allegedly ran with, gripped, drew, and fell with a gun left no forensic trace whatsoever. The ballistic report confirmed the weapon had been fired at some point, but nothing connected that discharge to the accused.

The judge held that the Crown failed to prove possession, noting irreconcilable differences in the officers’ accounts of where the weapon was found, ranging from inches away to a foot away, and that there was no evidence ruling out the possibility that someone else in the vicinity was responsible for the firearm.

On the assault counts, Justice Carr stated that the physical evidence and the officers’ own behaviour did not support the claim that a gun was pointed at them. She rejected the prosecution’s version entirely, ruling that the Crown had not discharged its burden on any of the four counts.

Upon hearing the verdict, Hayles reportedly broke down in tears inside the courtroom, crying, “Thank you Jesus, and thank you mi lawya.