Not so long ago there was a case where a taxi driver literally picked up his last fare for the night.
The taxi driver, a decent chap from all accounts, offered the group of youngsters a discount on their trip to rural Barbados. But it was his unfortunate call to be charitable to the late-night marauding group of youngsters. They set upon him, robbed him and he was fatally shot.
The driver never got to say his wedding vows which would have been upcoming in a few weeks; a fiancé waited for a lover who never turned up; and friends and colleagues missed a friendly face – all because of an act of lawlessness.
The driver’s body, still in the car, was recovered from a ravine in the countryside after two young men spotted it. A cowardly shot to the back of the head had ended the driver’s life.
Taxi drivers, a group that already felt marginalized by society, were outraged by the brazenness of the perpetrators. Amid the cries from the taxi drivers, a group was apprehended and charged. There was further outrage when all but one in the group had the manslaughter charge dismissed.
At trial the guilty plea and a strong mitigation from his defence lawyer earned the youngster a mere four years. Stunned, the taxi drivers soon found their voice and launched a blistering attack on the justice system that allowed a youngster to walk away with a slap on the wrist for killing a man.
They were joined in their outrage by members of the public who disagreed with the sentence in a case where a life was lost because, according to the young killer, his money was gone and he wanted more.
The decree went out that a Director of Public Prosecutions reference should be lodged. The sentence, it was felt, was unduly lenient and might cause the public to lose confidence in the judicial system.
Just as a convicted person can appeal a sentence as excessive, the DPP’s reference gives the Crown the right to challenge a sentence that is unduly lenient or does not reflect the public’s concern. In the end, the swift response ensured that the sentence was tripled. The change in the sentence satisfied, to a certain extent, the drivers and the public’s call for justice to be done.
In instances where there is considerable public outcry or perceived confusion in the mind of the public on matters, there should be a prompt response by the relevant body. I believe the onus rests on the head of the organization to come out and allay the fears and concerns of those involved or those looking on.
The Royal Barbados Police Force’s handling of two recent incidents that ended fatally is cause for concern. Clearly, relatives and the public are confused about the way the police went about the charge in the case of Joshua Boyce, age two, following a domestic dispute in The Ivy, St Michael.
In the other case, Brenda Belle fell victim to a second attack after initially escaping with her life only days prior. Belle appeared to have lacked the protection and safety most people seek when reporting a matter to the police. Having reported the first attack, Belle, like any other resident, would have expected that the police’s intervention would have guaranteed her a certain level of safety. It did not.
The public is therefore owed an explanation as to what went wrong. It is not good enough to say that an investigation into the lead-up to the death would be coming.
For a force that is reeling under accusations of police brutality and a poor reputation when it comes to handling certain matters, it needs to start pointedly addressing some of the concerns raised. A country must be able to have confidence in its police.
Incidents like these that leave more questions than answers have a way of undermining public confidence in the force. It is better for the police to come right out from the earliest point and speak to the public with clarity.
We await the outcome as the police probe their own.
• Antoinette Connell is DAILY NATION Editor.
