Nearly a year after 29-year-old Kemo Grant died in police custody, his family still awaits an autopsy report from last August 28.
Grant was found dead on June 9, as police made their routine cell checks around 7:30 a.m. that day. The family has been calling for a forensic pathologist to perform the post mortem rather than a general pathologist.
Speaking at a media conference recently at the office of Pilgrim & Associates, attorneys Martie Garnes and Tyra Trotman, who are representing the family, explained that the forensic pathologist was necessary to determine the cause of death as well as the manner in which the person died.
In June of 2024, the attorneys filed an injunction and a judicial review challenging the Coroner’s decision allowing the general pathologist to perform the autopsy and are still awaiting a ruling on the latter.
“Since then, we’ve had one judgment for the injunction and in respect of the substantive application itself, we’ve received no ruling on that whatsoever.
“What is particularly concerning to us is when you recognise that since the 28th of August, 2024, the autopsy would have been performed . . . nine months after the fact, we do not have an autopsy report,” Garnes said.
On November 25, the attorneys wrote to Commissioner of Police Richard Boyce, who said in an interview that a post-mortem was completed and a report presented to the Coroner.
“He said that it’s finished. So why it is that we can’t know what was the cause of death. Is it because the police are involved?” Garnes asked.
As the delay continues, he said, Grant’s body is in the morgue in a mummified state, the family is asked to collect his remains and is being billed.
“We cannot even find out what was the cause of death and they want to pressure the family and us the lawyers to collect the body saying that we’re racking up a bill. But if we are racking up a bill, give us what we need, which is the autopsy report.
“And I think it is unconscionable to ask a family to pay for a bill for storing their loved one because it is in circumstances where you yourself caused the delay. That’s unconscionable, that’s wrong,” he added.
The attorneys are appealing for the matter to be expedited because they said there was little they could do except file another judicial review noting the severe delays in the autopsy reports.
“Even that in of itself now is another problem because a judicial officer is then going to say, ‘I can’t force another judicial officer to present or to release their findings’, and so on.
“For example, they are given a ruling on the matter, and if it is you look at the Constitution, the Constitution speaks to the accused person and accused having the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
“The problem is Kemo Grant is not an accused, he’s a victim. He’s someone that died in a cell. So can it be said that we can file a constitutional motion? In my opinion, I don’t think so,” he added.
Attorney Trotman charged that the results of Grant’s case send a disheartening message about the judicial process and the citizen’s trust in law enforcement.
“We filed the matter since the 26th of June, 2024, and now we’re in May 2025, almost a year later. The matter was filed urgently. How is it fair? How is it right? It is wrong,” Trotman said, “. . . This young man died in police custody. They had a duty of care to make sure that he was safe. We have a situation where he died suddenly, but yet up to today we cannot get a report, we can’t get an autopsy report. It is sending a strong message to the public.
“And I am afraid today that we’re in an environment where there’s a distrust amongst police officers and the public. There are several persons who have died in police custody and up to date, if you ask what happened, we cannot get an answer,” she added.
The attorneys also made comparisons between the expedited handling of Grant’s autopsy reports and that of 11-year-old Adrianna Younge’s autopsy report, which was also conducted by Barbados pathologist Dr Shubhakar Karra Paul.
“The CCJ has spoken extensively about judges giving their decisions within the maximum of six months time. And if they go over six months, they’re supposed to report to the Chief Justice to let [him] know why it is they need more time.”
