THE ROAD TO HELL

WINDSHIELD WIPER FREED

Alvin Campbell, o/​c Rocky, who came to nation­al atten­tion as a wind­screen wiper on the TVJ pro­gramme ‘Impact’ with Ms Emily Crooks, was freed on Tuesday of all charges in the Half-Way Tree Resident Magistrate’s Court before Her Honour Ms Maxine Ellis. On the court being told that there were no state­ments on the file, his attor­ney, Howard Hamilton, QC, told the court that he was not sur­prised at that dis­clo­sure because it had long been his clien­t’s con­tention that there could nev­er have been any alle­ga­tion that he had obstruct­ed any motorist as, on the occa­sion of his arrest, the police had sim­ply come along and “scraped up” all per­sons like him, who had been wip­ing wind­screens for a living.

alter­na­tive measures

The mag­is­trate, while admit­ting that she her­self was famil­iar with the prac­tice, expressed the view that some alter­na­tive mea­sures ought to be con­tem­plat­ed to enable these young men to be gain­ful­ly employed, but as there was no one present alleg­ing that Mr Campbell had obstruct­ed them, the case was dis­missed for want of pros­e­cu­tion. Mr Hamilton advised the court that he had been in dia­logue with the min­is­ter of nation­al secu­ri­ty, who has expressed the inten­tion to exam­ine pro­pos­als to address the situation.

I am, etc.,

HOWARD HAMILTON, QC

26 Duke Street

Kingston

LETTER OF THE DAY

HAMILTON THE WINDSHIELD CLEANER AND THE MINISTER

The Gleaner of November 4 pub­lished a let­ter titled ‘Windshield wiper freed’. The author of the let­ter, Howard Hamilton, QC, is a well-known Jamaican lawyer and now it seems de fac­to pro­tag­o­nist for wind­shield clean­ers. In the let­ter he boasts about his client being freed. While I have no knowl­edge of the guilt or inno­cence of this accused man, I have a seri­ous prob­lem with Hamilton’s asser­tions in para­graph two. As a for­mer detec­tive of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) I am incensed. Paragraph two reads: “On the court being told that there were no state­ments on the file, his attor­ney, Howard Hamilton, QC, told the court that he was not sur­prised at that dis­clo­sure because it had long been his clien­t’s con­tention that there could nev­er have been any alle­ga­tion that he had obstruct­ed any motorist as, on the occa­sion of his arrest, the police had sim­ply come along and ‘scraped up’ all per­sons like him, who had been wip­ing wind­screens for a liv­ing.” The law gives the police in Jamaica the author­i­ty to pros­e­cute an offend­er who, with­in his view, obstructs traf­fic. No sup­port­ing state­ment is required to arrest, pros­e­cute, or con­vict. That’s the law. If Howard Hamilton does not like the law, he can use his vast influ­ence to lob­by for change but he should not attempt to mis­lead the pub­lic into believ­ing that this alleged offend­er was exon­er­at­ed because no motorist was hin­dered, and sub­se­quent­ly no com­plainant state­ment was avail­able. In cas­es of this nature pros­e­cut­ed under the (Road Traffic Act) it is one’s word against the polices’. The last para­graph of Hamilton’s let­ter reads thus: “Mr Hamilton advised the court that he had been in dia­logue with the min­is­ter of nation­al secu­ri­ty, who has expressed the inten­tion to exam­ine pro­pos­als to address the sit­u­a­tion.” What is Hamilton doing talk­ing to the min­is­ter of nation­al secu­ri­ty, a politi­cian, and the over­all boss of the police force about a mat­ter in which he was involved, still before the courts and to which a res­o­lu­tion had not yet being reached? Hamilton a renowned lawyer with immense influ­ence has no busi­ness hav­ing any con­ver­sa­tion with the min­is­ter of nation­al secu­ri­ty about any mat­ter in which he is involved and still before the courts. I would also like to ask the com­mis­sion­er of police to seri­ous­ly look at these police­men who arrest peo­ple and do not com­plete the process of case prepa­ra­tion that is nec­es­sary to gain a con­vic­tion. I am all too famil­iar with lazy cops who bring the JCF into ridicule and dis­re­pute. Superintendent Radcliffe Lewis, with much fan­fare, took on this issue, a move I sup­port­ed in this medi­um as nec­es­sary. He must be the boss who del­e­gates and select one mid-lev­el super­vi­sor, prefer­ably an inspec­tor or sergeant, to vet the court files for cor­rec­tion and com­ple­tion. This is what those ranks are sup­posed to do.

I am, etc.,

Mike Beckles

MIKE BECKLES MYOPIA

Mike Beckles’ let­ter in your November 5 edi­tion typ­i­fies the skewed views per­sons will have of sit­u­a­tions in Jamaica from their lofty tow­ers in Poughkeepsie, New York, which, as every used car sales­man in America knows, is itself a recog­nised retire­ment loca­tion for “lit­tle old ladies, whose motor cars have clocked very lit­tle mileage” For his infor­ma­tion, there is no statute on the books in Jamaica which makes it an offence to wipe wind­screen of motor cars on a pub­lic thor­ough­fare. It is a dif­fer­ent mat­ter if, in the act of wip­ing a wind­screen, a motorist is obstruct­ed there­by, and, as Mr Beckles has cor­rect­ly stat­ed, “the law gives the police in Jamaica the author­i­ty to pros­e­cute an offend­er who, with­in his view, obstructs traf­fic”. It is in his next para­graph, how­ev­er, that Mr Beckles, not sur­pris­ing­ly, veers off track. “No sup­port­ing state­ment is required to arrest, pros­e­cute or con­vict,” he says.

Fourth court appearance

For Mr Beckles’ ben­e­fit, the occa­sion of Alvin Campbell’s acquit­tal was his fourth appear­ance in court and, as the clerk of court report­ed to the res­i­dent mag­is­trate, that there were no state­ments on the file from day one, none from any motorist and none from the arrest­ing offi­cer him­self — so there was no alle­ga­tion that the arrest­ing offi­cer had wit­nessed any obstruc­tion. On the oth­er hand, it was Mr Campbell’s con­tention that he was arrest­ed because he was a “known” wind­screen clean­er, and not for clean­ing any wind­screen that day. As for my hav­ing dia­logue with the min­is­ter of nation­al secu­ri­ty, that had noth­ing to do with Mr Campbell specif­i­cal­ly but, rather, was to devise a more humane approach to redi­rect these young men who, in a des­per­ate attempt to eke out a liv­ing on the harsh streets of Kingston, may be tempt­ed, or dri­ven, to a life of crime.

I am, etc.,

HOWARD HAMILTON, QC

26 Duke Street

MY RESPONSE