Police Cpl and JP Testify in Case of Bladen 12

The voir dire in the case of the Bladen Twelve resumed today at the Charles Bartlett Hyde Building in Belize City. The twelve men are facing trial for the landing of a drug plane on the Southern Highway on November fifth, 2021. The prosecution called its fifth and sixth witnesses today in the persons of a police corporal and a Justice of the Peace. Head of Prosecutions, attorney Alifah Elrington, called Corporal Jose Uh this morning. Uh, who was a constable at the time, recorded a caution statement from one of the accused, Moises Perez. The defense is claiming that several of the defendants were beaten or threatened while in police custody following the discovery and seizure of the plane. In court today, much of the arguments centred on whether Moises Perez was abused in any way. The JP, Martin Cal, was present during the recording of that statement and said he spent a few minutes alone with Perez before he gave the statement. Today, the Senior Magistrate presiding over the matter admitted Perez’s statements so that the court can determine at the end of this voir dire, whether any of the defendants were coerced, beaten, or in any way abused to give their statements. We spoke first to one of the defence attorneys, Leroy Banner, and then to the Head of the Prosecutions Branch, Alifa Elrington.

 

Leroy Banner, Attorney for Four Accused Drug Traffickers

“The person who recorded the caution statement testified today. It was tendered. So she just mark it to say it is entered into evidence.”

 

Reporter

What does that mean, because at the end of the voir dire she will decide whether the caution statement will be accepted into evidence is what we understand.

 

Leroy Banner

“That is so. At this stage, it’s just – we’re going through the process, then she will decide after hearing both sides if it was given freely and voluntarily, then she was admit it into evidence formally. So right now it is just tendering into evidence, and if she decides okay, I’m satisfied that it was given freely in compliance with the Evidence Act, I will admit it. But at this stage, no, we’re not at that stage yet.”

 

Reporter

“She also said that she is not looking at the content right now. What does that mean?”

 

Leroy Banner

“Okay, that means – because when it comes to a caution statement, what is important is not the truth of the caution statement. What is important is that when the police got the statement, was it given freely? Was the person beaten? Was he threatened? Those are the questions, so it’s not per se if it’s the truth. We’re not concerned about the truth. We are concerned if the police follow the Evidence Act. Was there any force? Was there any inducement? Was there any promise? Today. We focused on Mr. Perez’ statement. He gave two statements on the 5th and 6th of November 2021. Those are the statements we challenge.”

 

Alifa Elrington, Head of Prosecutions Dept.

“The defense has been alleging or suggesting that they were beaten and beaten for all the time that they were in police custody and therefore they had no other reason but to give these statements because the police were beating them and beating them. I believe that on the last occasion, I told the court that we would have about 10 witnesses for the voir dire. So if we’re at about six, then I have about four more witnesses.”