High Court Sounds Alarm Over Police Firearms Accountability After Innocent Bystanders Shot

A High Court judge has called for sweeping changes to the Royal Saint Lucia Police Force’s firearms policies after finding the State liable for the shooting of two innocent bystanders during a police operation in Laborie. He warned that serious gaps in accountability could undermine public confidence in law enforcement.

In a judgment delivered on June 25, Justice Alvin Shiva Pariagsingh said the February 11, 2023 incident exposed significant weaknesses in how police-issued firearms are managed before, during and after officers open fire.

The ruling stems from a civil lawsuit brought by Marley Simeon and Troystan Jn Pierre, who were struck by police gunfire during a confrontation with Eric Thomas outside Empire 758 nightclub in Laborie.

While awarding damages to both men, the judge used the closing section of his judgment to issue a broader warning about police firearms accountability, describing the issues raised as matters of significant public importance.

“Where State-issued firearms are discharged, particularly in a crowded area, there must be a clear and dependable account of the firearm carried by each officer, the ammunition available before the incident, the rounds discharged, the rounds remaining and the prompt securing of the weapons for investigation,” Justice Pariagsingh wrote.

He found that standard was not met.

According to the judgment, unresolved questions remained over the number of rounds fired by officers, when their firearms were surrendered for examination and the delayed disclosure of critical ballistic evidence.

“The evidence left unresolved questions concerning the rounds discharged by the officers, the timing of the submission of the firearms and the delayed disclosure of material ballistic evidence,” the judge stated, noting that these shortcomings were especially troubling because identifying the bullets that struck the claimants was central to the case.

Justice Pariagsingh also questioned the policies governing off-duty officers who carry State-issued firearms while working private security jobs or attending social events.

“The issue is not whether an off-duty officer may respond to danger… The concern is whether adequate policies and safeguards exist to govern the retention and carriage of State-issued firearms by officers who are off duty, engaged in private employment or attending social gatherings where disorder may arise,” he said.

The judge further stressed that firearms training must extend beyond marksmanship to focus on restraint, proportionality and protecting innocent civilians.

He noted that police Standing Orders describe the use of firearms as a last resort and require officers to apprehend armed suspects with the least possible danger.

“Those safeguards are important precisely because, as occurred here, innocent members of the public may suffer grave injury when firearms are discharged without sufficient regard to their presence,” the judgment states.

Justice Pariagsingh was equally critical of the State’s reliance on the absence of ballistic evidence, saying deficiencies in its own investigative processes contributed to that absence.

“It is extremely unsatisfactory that the Defendant relied on the absence of ballistic proof while the State’s own processes did not provide a complete and timely accounting of the firearms and ammunition involved,” he wrote.

He added that civilians injured during police gunfire should not be placed at a disadvantage because of failures in preserving and investigating evidence.

As a result, the court directed the Registrar of the High Court to forward the judgment to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police for consideration of any action they deem appropriate.

Justice Pariagsingh said that review could examine policies governing the carriage of service firearms outside regular police duties, including during private employment or social engagements, procedures for immediately accounting for firearms after police shootings, the timely disclosure of investigative evidence and the adequacy of ongoing firearms training.

In the underlying case, the court found on a balance of probabilities that Simeon and Jn Pierre were struck by bullets fired by police officers during the confrontation.

The judge rejected officers’ claims that Eric Thomas fired at police during the decisive exchange and concluded they breached their duty of care by discharging multiple rounds while members of the public remained nearby.

The court awarded Marley Simeon $80,000 in general damages, $13,211 in special damages, $5,200 for loss of earnings and $2,000 for gratuitous care. Troystan Jn Pierre received $50,000 in general damages, $8,133 in special damages and $10,000 in aggravated damages, along with interest and prescribed costs.

The post High Court Sounds Alarm Over Police Firearms Accountability After Innocent Bystanders Shot appeared first on Saint Lucia Daily Post.