Sidebar

Bermuda Ex Police Association
  • Home
  • Latest News
  • Who When Where
  • Keeping in Touch
  • Interesting Articles
  • Then and Now
  • Hall of Fame
  • Press Releases
  • Training School Photos
  • Photo Gallery
  • Expo Lists
    • List of Colleagues
    • List of Deceased Colleagues
    • List of Officers A-C
    • List of Nicknames
  • User Options
    • Log In
    • Log Out
    • Edit Profile
    • Password Reset
  • About Us
    • Annual Dues
    • Our Members
    • Contact Us
    • Committee
  • BPS Magazine
  • Smart Search

Latest Interesting Article

Interesting Articles

 

 

 

This section features interesting articles written by former colleagues on a wide range of subjects related to the Bermuda Police Service or recounting personal experiences.   We are delighted to receive articles from anyone who wishes to put pen to paper, and will assist with editing where necessary.

 

 

Heroin Dealer Jumps Through Window

Details
Interesting Articles

 

Dennis Franklyn Preece was a well-known heroin dealer and user. He went by the nickname ‘Junkie’ and lived in premises at Dock Hill, Devonshire.

 

Acting on information received, Detective Sergeant Dennis Ramsay in company with another officer commenced watching Preece’s house in the early morning hours of a February day in 1980. From their concealed position nearby the officers saw a man arrive on a scooter and then walk towards the bathroom window. They heard words spoken after which the louver of the window opened and the officers’ saw money pass through the screen. A silver tin foil deck was returned from inside through the window.

 

Later that same morning, the detectives watched other people approach the same window where similar transactions took place. On one occasion, one of the buyers opened the foil deck in the yard, put his thumb into the foil, and snorted from it.

 
 
Detective Sergeant Dennis Ramsay
 

At precisely 11 a.m. that same morning the officers’ observations were thwarted when two people came towards them from the direction of the defendant’s residence. In D.S. Ramsay’s words, “They observed who we were. At that time I got on the radio and summoned the entire narcotics section who responded immediately.”

Narcotics squad officers entered Preece’s residence through the kitchen door. They were armed with a search warrant and immediately confronted the defendant in the company of two other men. Preece was seen to be holding a small container with a bit of masking tape wrapped around it. Before Detective Constable Chris Moyse had a chance to speak to him, Preece ran from the kitchen through the house and entered the children’s bedroom. He jumped through a glass window above a bed, crossing his hands over his head with his arms as he went to protect his face.

 
D.C. Chris Moyse
 

D.C. Moyse later told a Supreme Court jury that he followed Preece through the window and landed on top of him on the ground five feet below. A struggle ensued during which time Preece threw away a container the contents of which were found to be 67 foil wraps later analyzed to contain heroin. A partially smoked cigarette from the kitchen floor contained a mixture of cannabis and tobacco. Powder scraped from two glass plates was later found by the Government analyst, Mrs. E.W., to contain traces of heroin. Traces of drugs were also discovered in a razor blade, an ashtray and in a straw.

 

Follow-up arrests were later made, he said, inclusive of those who had halted the observations prematurely.

At his trial in October 1980 Preece pled not guilty to a total of four charges:- 

possession of heroin; possession of cannabis; supply of heroin; and obstructing a Police officer in the execution of his duty. Mr. Tony Palmer appeared for the defendant.

 

The case was heard before the Acting Puisne Judge, the Hon. Mr. Justice Barcilon.

 

Opening evidence from D.S. Ramsay and Dc Moyse was heard by the jury before the case was adjourned for Mr. Justice Barcilon to hear legal submissions concerning the accused’s statement of confession to the police, that he had supplied between 50 and 60 customers in the 10 days before he was arrested on February 15. He also claimed that about 300 bags of the drugs are sold in Bermuda every day.

 

As the Detective Inspector and OIC of the drug squad, I was the last of the Prosecution witnesses to give evidence. In answer to defence counsel, I told the court that I had good reason to believe Preece was a heroin user and that when I interviewed his client in company with another officer, he had not mentioned that he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms. I agreed with Mr. Palmer that during the course of my interview, his client had named his supplier which he had earlier refused to do.

 

Preece was found guilty of possession of heroin with intent to supply – (10 years); supplying heroin – (15 years); possession of cannabis – (one year); and obstructing Police – (one year).

He had earlier pled guilty to allowing his house to be used for the taking of drugs (five years) and possessing equipment for the use of drugs (five years).

Preece was sentenced to a total of 15 years on six offences including supplying heroin. 

All sentences ran concurrently.

After his conviction, the court was told that Preece was jailed for four years in 1975 for possession of heroin with intent to supply.

 

His lawyer, Mr. Tony Palmer, said Preece had only been selling heroin for five to ten days before he was arrested and he only sold the drugs to people he knew. “There has been no suggestion that he attempted to corrupt young people or that he sold it to people who did not previously use the drug,” said Mr. Palmer. “He was no more than a tool for the big fish. He also tried to hold on to a job but couldn’t. The whole thing is quite tragic.”

Before sentencing Preece, Mr. Justice Barcilon said to Dc Moyse, who had previously left the Bermuda Police Force in August to go back to England:

“I must commend you on your conduct during this case and the way you gave your evidence. I hope you will have a good long career in England and Bermuda is sorry she has lost you.”

 

In sentencing Preece to the 15 year stretch in Casemates, the Acting Puisne Judge, the Hon. Mr. Justice Barcilon told him:

“People like you should be punished severely. I had a man up here about a month ago by the name of [Dennis Webster] Warner and he got 15 years for exactly the same thing. And you also have a previous conviction for this (supplying heroin).”

 ______________________________________________

 

Preece later appealed before the Court of Appeal to have his 15-year jail sentence reduced for dealing in drugs. He first appealed against conviction but later decided to appeal against sentence only. The appellant had argued that his sentence was excessive in light of the fact that at the time of his arrest he was in possession of only 1.563 grams of 34 percent strength heroin and 10.461 grams of cannabis.

In a written statement, the Appeal Court judges said that the trial judge had correctly taken a serious view of the offences committed by Preece who admitted more than two years ago to selling about 600 bags of heroin in a ten-day period. The three judges wrote:

“When deciding on a sentence, a court must take into account all the circumstances and, on his own admission, this appellant was selling heroin and cannabis to a very considerable number of addicts.”

 

But the Appeal Court judges said the amount seized at the moment of arrest was only one factor in deciding a sentence. And they pointed to Preece’s own admission that he was selling a large amount of heroin.

 

When asked how much he had sold over the previous ten days, Preece had replied:

“About five or six hundred bags …… Let me tell you mate, you don’t realize, about 300 bags a day get sold in Bermuda.”

 

It was also noted by the Judges that Preece had told Police before confessing:

“Look, I’ll tell you the truth. I don’t want to do no ten years.”

 

The 34-year old former employee of the Hamilton Princess failed in his appeal to have his 15-year jail sentence reduced.

 

REFERENCES:

The Royal Gazette 27 October 1980

COURT HEARS HOW ACCUSED JUMPED THROUGH WINDOW

DRUGS DEFENCE BEGINS TODAY

The Royal Gazette 28 October 1980

HEROIN PUSHER GETS 15 YEARS

The Royal Gazette 29 October 1980

HEROIN DEALER LOSES APPEAL ON SENTENCE

The Royal Gazette 

 

Editors notes -

This article was written by retired Detective Superintendent George Rose, who was a Detective Inspector in Narcotics at the time of this case.

 

Dennis Ramsay served in the Bermuda Police from 1967 until 1993, and spent most of his service as a very experienced detective in C.I.D. and Narcotics retiring as a Detective Chief Inspector.

 

D.C. Chris Moyse joined the Bermuda Police in 1973, after first serving in the Hampshire Constabulary for 6 years.  He was transferred into CID after just 5 months in uniform and was then moved to Narcotics.  Chris left the BPS after serving here for 7 years following which we lost contact with him.  Sadly we received news earlier this year that Chris had died in Boston, Mass. on 26th July 2016 after a lengthy illness.  You can view more information about his death on our website at http://expobermuda.com/index.php/latest-news/661-sad-death-of-chris-moyse-in-2016

Another Day in Paradise

Details
Interesting Articles

 

Can you assist in identifying everyone in this photo?

We just came into possession of this photograph along with an accompanying poem, both of which were kindly provided to us by former P.C. Jim McIlwain.   The envelope indicated that it contained a missive from Eric "Wee Eckie" Laing from his "Collection of writings and memories" which was given to Jim by his fellow Scotsman.  Jim explained that the subject matter was also one of his fond memories of Bermuda.

Before you read any further I would ask that you have a close look at the photo to see how many people you can recognize, and then try to figure out what on earth they were up to on official business down East!

The explanation is contained in this excellent poem written by the "Wee Eckie" who clearly had a way with words coupled with a great sense of humour. Here is "Wee Eckie's" Ode to "An Advenure in Old St. George's".

 

Young P.C. Eric "Wee Eckie" Laing

AN ADVENTURE IN OLD ST. GEORGE'S   -  JULY 1967

 

At 2.pm on Friday the 21st of July

We were sitting in the Police Club eating BLT on rye,

When a giant Irish Sergeant, like a bolt from out the blue,

Said, "Just the men I'm looking for, I have a job for you."

Poor Flooky went six shades of white beneath his golden tan,

My stomach turned then churned and burned and left me feeling wan,

The Sergeant spake the awful words in his growling Irish brogue, Said he, "It seems a woman's found a safe, somewhere off Cut Road".

 

Now "somewhere" is the mildest term he possibly could have used,

T'WAS SEVENTY BLOODY FEET DOWN! all rusty and abused,

It seems this woman, bless her heart, had thought it might hold treasure,

She'd staked her claim but couldn't raise it, to do so was our measure;

 

With typical British dignity and in seniority of rank,

We stumbled, fell and clawed our way, to the bottom of the bank,

There we saw the object of all the 'fficial fuss,

Three by three by four, perhaps, it looked nothing much to us;

 

"We can move it easily" he Sergeant calmly said,

And straightening up to plot our course, promptly banged his head

On an overrhanging awkward branch of an old, dead cedar tree,

The likes of which were fifty more, between the top and we;

So shirts and jackets belts and vests into the bush were cast,

Alas in ur exhuberence, poor Flooky's pipe gopt lost,

Eventually we got started, to move the safe around,

To get it off the water's edge and on to solid ground;

 

Well, we took a deep breath all around and pushed and pulled and moved it once its length.

We had to stop; this humble effort made us sweat like mad,

Sarge was gushing sweat from pores he never knew he had;

At length I said "to hell with this. let's get it up the hill,

With gritted teeth we bent and heaved it upwards with a will,

Over and over and over it went, first this way then that,

Till twenty feet above the shore we rested on a flat;

 

The sounds of voices high above filled our hearts with hope,

There, crashing down, came Jim and Al and Neill, with a rope,

This was quickly fastened so that they could take the strain,

And hold the cursed, bloody thing when we rested once again;

 

The next was bound to happen, Sarge's hand caught 'neath the rope,

I laughed and vanished suddenly, backwards down the slope;

It  seemed no solid ground was there as I got set to push,

My mighty thrust reversed itself and threw me in the bush!

 

The straw that broke the camel's back of what that might be called.

I was angry then and when I'm mad, something's going to fall

Sarge and Flook were in accord, determined was their mein

We attacked the safe with furious strength and up it went again.

 

Suddenly Flooky's voice went booming viciously o'er the rocks.

Snagged on a cedar halfway down, was half of one of his socks,

I laughted again and stumbled over a hidden cedar root,

Sarge yelled "stop  ye highland nit, it's on my bloody foot!"

 

We rescued him and off we went quite steadily its true,

Till at last, (Ye gods, at last!) the summit came in view,

I saw the laddies on the rope, pulling away like slaves,

Two were stripped and sweating, Al still wore his cap and shades,

"Ten feet to go, we're nearly there!: was all that we could say,

"Let's go!" said Sarge, and go we did, this time all the way;

 

You've earned your beer this day" he said and thanked us all around,

As at the top we wheezed and gasped and flopped all over the ground.

 

To put it in the truck was next; here, we began to argue,

When a female voice behind us said, "You're not taking my table are you,"

 

Not a sound was heard in the silece that followed that remark

Till Flook collapsed with an anguishged sob, clutching his aching back ,

"What do you mean, 'your table'?" Sarge asked in a deadly voice,

"Are you telling me that this safe here was down there by choice?"

"Oh yes" she says unwittingly, "My husbands friends and he",

"Put it there so we could have our picnics by the sea".

 

Then the Sarge exploded, his vernacular singed the grass,

'KISS ME!" he roared (I can't remember where but I know it rhymed with grass)

"Now see here!  this is private property although some signs it lacks,

And I'll be much oblighed if you will kindly put it back!"

 

A glint came to the Sergeant's eyes, as he slowly swung around,

"Okay lads", he says to us, "Let's put the thing back down".

 

We managed well till halfway down, the safe began to roll,

Nine hundred weight is far too much for four poor men to hold,

And thus the tale is ended, quite happily for we.

 

Now she can have her picnics - not only by,  but IN, the sea!

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

Editors note  -  Many thanks to Jim McIlwain for sending us this excellent poem written by Eric "Wee Eckie" Laing.  

Young P.C. Jim McIlwain

 

Jim mentioned that  it is taken from Eric's "collection of writings and memories.  It would be very interesting to hear if anyone has any more poems or writings by "Wee Eckie" and if so we would be delighted to receive them.

 

Burning Down A.S. Coopers Warehouse - 1968

Details
Interesting Articles

Wednesday 25th April 2018, will mark the 50th anniversary of the 1968 riots during which A.S. Cooper's Warehouse, then located on Union Street in Hamilton, was burned to the ground.  This article, written by George Rose, highlights the arson at Cooper's warehouse and the result of the subsequent Police investigation into the cause of the fire, which was one of the many investigations carried out following the riots.

 

 

1968 RIOTS - THE BURNING DOWN OF A.S. COOPERS WAREHOUSE

A very rare and costly collection of Wedgwood china was among stock insured for £150,000 which went up in flames when A.S. Cooper’s warehouse was destroyed by fire during the April 1968 riots. In the collection was a rare antique vase, dating from 1877, one of only three in the world. One of these vases was recently sold for $9,000. Other stock included furniture, china, carpets and clothing. In addition to the stock the fire also destroyed two vans which were insured for £1,000 each. The building itself was insured for £5,000.

 

News reports described that the biggest blaze was at A.S. Cooper’s china warehouse on Union Street, which was gutted. Overhead, great boiling clouds of smoke tinted brilliant red climbed hundreds of feet into the air, followed by volcanic outbursts of flames – all from A.S. Cooper’s warehouse, Ideal Furniture and several houses. The fire spread to four nearby houses, severely damaging them.

 

Ensuing investigations led me on the morning of Monday 20 May 1968 to a construction site on the grounds of the Warwick Academy, Middle Road, Warwick where I saw a man I knew to be Winslow Vancourt ‘Dewey’ Durrant.  I said to him, “I am Dc Rose from the Hamilton C.I.D I am making enquiries into the burning down of Coopers Warehouse on Friday 26thApril during the riots. I have reason to believe that you may be able to help me with my enquiries.” I cautioned Durrant and he said, “I must keep out of trouble. I have a wife and home now you know.”

I said, “Will you accompany me to Hamilton C.I.D now, I wish to ask you some more questions?” Durrant said, “I’ll tell you now that I was at home all over the trouble.”  He entered my police vehicle.

 

In an interview room at the Hamilton C.I.D, I said, “Dewey, I have reliable information which says that you were concerned with a lot of others on the Friday of the riots in burning down A.S. Coopers warehouse on Union Street.  I believe this information to be true and I want the truth from you as to your whereabouts that night and what you did.” I further cautioned Durrant who said, “I was at home. Honest to God I was at home. You check.”

I asked, “Will you make a statement to this effect?”  He replied, “Yes I will.”

 

I recorded a statement under caution from Durrant after which I said to him, “I am not satisfied with your explanation and I am arresting you on suspicion of having committed arson at Coopers Warehouse and Ideal Furniture on Friday 26thApril 1968.  I again cautioned him and he said, “You will see you are wrong. Speak to my wife.” Later that afternoon I interviewed Mrs. Durrant and recorded a statement from her. In company with D/Sgt. Donald I re-interviewed Durrant and then recorded a second statement from him under caution.

 

Subsequently, Durrant was indictably charged with setting the warehouse on fire, and alternatively with being riotously assembled with others in destroying the building during the early morning hours of April 27. After a long form Preliminary Inquiry in which I gave my evidence Durrant was committed to stand trial at the next Supreme Court session. Together with other witnesses I was formally bound over to be available for trial purposes.

Unexpectedly, the trial date was brought forward on the Supreme Court calendar and on Thursday 1st August 1968 whilst on overseas vacation and travelling with a companion, I received the following communique delivered to me in my hotel room by a uniformed German police officer during the early morning hours:

 

CABLE TELEGRAM VIA INTERPOL TO GERMAN FEDERAL POLICE                                   

‘Detective Constable Rose of the Bermuda Police Force is touring Germany with a “Four Ways” coach party.  He is staying the night at Hotel Post, 72 Post Strasse Kempten / Allgau, Germany. Please inform him, he is to return to Bermuda to give evidence in the Supreme Court at 1000 hours on Monday 5 August 1968 [R v Durrant]’.

 

I immediately withdrew from the tour leaving my companion to complete her trip alone and made my way overland to Innsbruck, Austria - then on to London arriving Bermuda on 3rdAugust 1968.

 

The Supreme Court trial commenced before the Chief Justice the Hon. Sir Miles Abbott. The Solicitor General, Mr. A.W. Sedgwick prosecuted and Durrant was represented by Miss Shirley Simmons. After uncontested evidence was led and placed into record, Inspector Douglas Hebbard who was in charge of a riot squad on the night of the warehouse fire said that as he proceeded with his men along Tills Hill and Court Street shortly after midnight the vehicle they were in was stoned and its windshield was broken. Noticing that Cooper’s warehouse and Ideal Furniture were on fire, Inspector Hebbard testified, he assigned half of the squad to cordon off one building, and half to cordon off the other. The men at the warehouse had stones thrown at them and they responded by using tear gas.

 

Capt. Theodore Early of the Hamilton Fire Brigade said he was in charge of the first vehicle to arrive at the warehouse fire. It was ablaze, he said, and shortly after they arrived the roof fell in, along with one of the walls. When this happened, the fire officer said, the blaze in the warehouse intensified and two houses nearby were also set on fire. These other fires were extinguished but the people living in the houses had to be evacuated.

 

Giving my evidence, I told the court that on May 20 I approached the accused on his construction job at the Warwick Secondary School and took him to the C.I.D offices in Hamilton where I questioned him about the fire. I told the court that Durrant denied being at the scene during any part of the riots on either the first night or the second night. I told the jury that I went to see Durrant’s wife to check on the alibi he had supplied to me in a written statement. When I returned to C.I.D headquarters Durrant was being interrogated by D/Sgt. Clive Donald and DC Leonard Maurice Edwards. I informed Durrant and my colleagues in the room that his wife had told me that he was not at home on the night in question and that she had supplied me with a witness statement to that effect.

 

I told the court that shortly after I entered the room Durrant agreed to make another statement.  Before I could read that statement to the court however, defense lawyer Miss Simmons objected. She said that the statement appeared to have been improperly taken, and her remarks resulted in the jury being sent out of the courtroom. For the next three hours I was part of a trial-within-a-trial concerning the admissibility of the statement. In the end the Chief Justice ruled the statement admissible. In this second statement, which I then read to the court, Durrant said that he was on the scene of the warehouse fire and was in the company of two girls. He gave the names of those he said he saw smashing the warehouse windows and said he “saw things like crates and boxes come out.” Continuing the statement, Durrant told me that he saw men and girls setting fire to the straw in these boxes and people began throwing the straw and burning boxes into the building, setting it ablaze.

 

Durrant’s statement continued: “Then someone shouted ‘the cops are coming’” and he ran off with the crowd. But as he ran, he said, he also threw a burning box into the warehouse. He slipped whilst running, and as he did so he received a strong dose of tear gas and someone helped him to get away as he could not see where he was going. Under cross-examination by Miss Simmons, I denied that I had added anything to the statement other than what Durrant had said. (The names of persons mentioned in Durrant’s statement were omitted from publication at the request of the Chief Justice).

 

D/Sgt. Donald gave evidence that during his questioning of Durrant the accused first said he was at home but later admitted he was on the scene of the fire when he was told that his wife had said he was not at home. D/Sgt. Donald said that there was some 45 minutes of further questioning of Durrant during which it was pointed out to him that the Police had information about what happened including Durrant’s having received a strong dose of tear gas. Durrant then offered to make a third statement about his part in setting the building on fire. In this third statement Durrant admitted he assisted in burning the building. During cross-examination, D/Sgt. Donald denied making threats or promises to Durrant to get him to make a confession.

DC Edwards corroborated Sgt. Donald’s testimony and said that he also had not heard any threats or promises being held out to the accused to make him confess.

 

In his evidence to the court Durrant denied that he had ever told the Police that he had thrown a box of burning straw into the warehouse, or that he had seen anyone else do things to destroy the building. “All I told them” the accused said, “was about my whereabouts and I thought that they were only writing down what I said about my whereabouts.” He accused detectives of concocting the confession they say he made to them.

 

Durrant said that he was with two girls, Ms. L. W and Ms. Y. D on Court Street during the second night of the riots, and Webb got a strong dose of tear gas. They went to an apartment near the warehouse to treat her for the gas. Durrant said that he saw nothing of the warehouse fire when he went into the apartment house or when he came out. But when he came out, he said, he saw some people running; a tear gas canister landed near him, and he received a strong dose of gas. He could not see, the accused said, and the girls assisted him to go behind Scratchy’s barbershop, and they treated his eyes. Later on, he continued, they all went in a taxi to Warwick, where they stayed for the night.

 

Under cross-examination Durrant agreed that the detectives had asked him questions about the fire, also about what other people were doing there, and about what he did there. But, he told the court, he did not think the detectives were writing down anything except what he was saying concerning his whereabouts. He said that he did not read what the detectives had written because he believed that it concerned only his whereabouts.

 

Ms. L.W gave an account of her movements with Durrant that night which corroborated Durrant’s testimony. However, under cross-examination, she agreed that she had made a statement to the C.I.D in which she told of sitting on a wall outside the apartment house with Durrant and seeing various persons breaking into the warehouse, throwing out boxes, setting them afire, and throwing them back into the warehouse. In reply to a question from the Solicitor General, Mr. A.W. Sedgwick, she said that the statement was true.

 

Mr. L.O, who was serving a prison sentence when he gave evidence for the defense, said that he was on the scene of the burning of Cooper’s Warehouse. He agreed that he had made a lengthy statement to the C.I.D about this and, that he had named a lot of people he saw taking part in the burning down of the building. In reply to a question from defense counsel Miss Shirley Simmons, he said that he did not see Durrant there, and that if Durrant was there he is sure he would have noticed him. O agreed that there were 30 or 40 persons there but he still would have noticed the accused if he were there, he said.

 

In her final address, Miss Simmons stressed that the prosecution had not brought forth the “best evidence” which is “direct evidence of what they say the accused did.” She noted that the detectives had told the accused they had evidence of what he did at the warehouse that night. “Why didn’t they produce this evidence?” the lawyer asked. She also noted that even though O had mentioned a lot of names of people he saw at the warehouse he insisted that he had not seen the accused.

 

Prosecutor Mr. Sedgwick asked the jury to “reject the suggestion” that three detectives each concocted the story that Durrant had made a confession of taking part in the burning down of the building. He also noted that the story as told by Ms. W of what she saw going on while she and Durrant were sitting on the wall was very close to what Durrant’s statement said, even though Durrant denied making the statement.

 

In his summation the Chief Justice pointed out that if jurors accepted statements in which the accused admitted being at the Cooper warehouse at the time the building was set alight then he would be guilty of arson. He asked the jury: “Who would be so utterly stupid as to sign a statement without taking the trouble to read it, knowing all the time the reason he was under arrest.” He pointed out that the accused had denied every single word in one of the statements although he had signed it as being the truth. In another statement the accused made a correction in a word but claimed he did not read the words making up the sentence.

 

The Chief Justice told the jury the case rested on their acceptance of evidence produced by the police and the degree of truth attached to claims by the accused that the reason he did not read the statements was because he thought they only concerned his whereabouts at the time. The jury, consisting of 11 men and one woman, retired at 11.55 a.m. returning an hour later with their verdict.

 

Winslow Vancourt  Durrant of Riviera Estates, Southampton, was sentenced to seven years in prison after a Supreme Court jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty on a charge of setting fire to Cooper’s Warehouse in the early hours of Saturday morning, April 27. In passing sentence, the Chief Justice the Hon. Sir Myles Abbott told Durrant: “You have been found guilty of a very serious crime.”

 

The matter was later appealed and the Appeals Court judges at first felt there were insufficient grounds for appeal and legal aid was refused but later in the proceedings, in light of various questions raised, the decision was reversed, and Miss Shirley Simmons was appointed to represent Durrant. Solicitor General M.A.W. Sedgwick appeared on behalf of the Crown. Miss Simmons submitted that there was no evidence Durrant set fire to the warehouse. She said the entire prosecution case rested on two alleged confessions made by the accused.

 

She read excerpts from the statements allegedly taken by Police which said that Durrant admitted throwing a box into the burning building and running away. Miss Simmons claimed that the prosecution never produced any evidence to show that this act ignited the building. Regarding the alleged confessions, the lawyer said the Police had told Durrant they were in possession of information about his role in the affair that night, and that witnesses had seen him taking part.

 

Sir Paget Bourke observed at this point that it was a matter for care if confessions suddenly popped up when the Police had no other evidence. Referring to evidence at the trial, Sir Paget said one Police officer was recorded as saying “We were trying to get a confession.”  This, the judge said, suggested some form of pressure must have been used. Sir Paget said the Police should never produce confessions without accounting for conditions under which they were obtained. Mr. Sedgwick said he saw nothing wrong with Police endeavoring to obtain a confession from a suspect.

 

Words allegedly used by Durrant in one of the statements, ‘Oh alright, I did take part but I was not the only one,’ were sufficient to admit involvement, Mr. Sedgwick said. In answer to Miss Simmons’ point that if Police were in possession of certain evidence it should have been produced in court, he recalled the trial judge, in his summation, had said that if Police produced their source of information every time then no one would want to give any.

 

Mr. Sedgwick read several pages of questions and answers from the trial, placing emphasis on the number of times Durrant changed his story. At first the man denied being at the scene, but later when he was told his wife had not supported his story of being at home, he admitted being there, but not taking part, Mr. Sedgwick said.

 

Miss Simmons said the prosecution never proved their case. The very statements, which the prosecution’s case depended on, were suspect because of the objectionable manner by which they were obtained. She told the judges she was appealing not to them but to the law. The conviction could not and must not stand, Miss Simmons went on.

 

The Appeals Court deferred judgment on Durrant’s petition against his sentence and conviction for setting fire to the A.S. Coopers warehouse. Some months later, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and seven-year prison sentence of Durrant, noting that, “The appellant has a number of previous convictions.” The court concluded their judgment: “The court does not consider that the sentence imposed by the trial Judge was too severe and it must stand. The appeal is dismissed.”

 

Two of the three judges found that the trial judge was not wrong in believing that the Police had not brought pressure on the accused to confess his part in the burning of the warehouse. The third, Sir Paget Bourke, “intimated” that he disagreed. The Court’s majority judgment said in part: “His appeal against conviction and sentence was argued on several grounds but the only ground of substance was that the trial judge had not properly exercised his discretion in admitting the alleged confession of the accused. 

 

The judgement continued: “The case for the prosecution rested entirely on three statements made by the accused. The prosecution called three Police officers on the issue of admissibility of the second and third statements which had been objected to on the grounds that they had not been voluntarily given….

 

“By the cross-examination of these officers it was sought to show that these statements had been improperly obtained, but the officers all denied that pressure of any kind had been brought to bear upon the accused or that unfair means had been used. The accused admitted having signed the two statements but said that he had done so in the belief that they contained only what he had told the Police about his whereabouts on the night of the fire. He denied having told them anything else and accused them of having deceived him by adding to his verbal statements to them things that they told him he had done. On further questioning he said that he had told the Police about his whereabouts because he had been influenced or affected by the way in which he was being interviewed and that he would not have given a statement to the Police at all if they had not drawn his attention to statements made by other people and told him that if he pleaded guilty he would only be fined.

 

“The trial judge had to determine whether in all the circumstances the accused had been improperly induced to admit his guilt. The interview which preceded the second statement had lasted a long time and in answer to the question ‘Were you trying to get Durrant to confess during this ¾ hours?’ D/Sgt. Donald who had taken the statement answered ‘Yes.’

 

“This admission must however, be related to the rest of his evidence and interpreted in the light of the whole of the evidence given by the Police. They described the atmosphere in which the interviews were conducted as friendly and the attitude of the accused as co-operative throughout. They said that he gave a lengthy account of the events of the night of the fire and that for a long time he denied having taken an active part in the setting of the fire but admitted participating when he realized that his wife had not supported his alibi and that the Police knew that he had been tear-gassed.

 

“The trial judge clearly believed the Police and his decision to admit the statements indicates that in his view they had not strayed beyond the bounds of propriety in eliciting from the accused the part he played in the burning of the warehouse. The majority of the court is unable to say that his decision was wrong and the appeal against conviction must accordingly fail.  Mr. Justice Bourke wishes it to be intimated that he does not concur in this part of the judgment.”

 

REFERENCES:

Bermuda Sun Saturday 27 April 1968

BERMUDA UNDER CURFEW AS SECOND RIOT ROCKS HAMILTON

The Royal GazetteTuesday 6 August 1968

RARE CHINA COLLECTION WRECKED IN RIOT FIRE, ARSON TRIAL IS TOLD

The Royal Gazette

CONFESSION CONCOCTED BY POLICE, ALLEGED ARSONIST TELLS THE SUPREME COURT

The Royal GazetteThursday 8 August 1968

SEVEN YEARS IN GAOL FOR MAN WHO SET FIRE TO WAREHOUSE

The Royal Gazette

APPEALS COURT JUDGES REVERSE DECISION AND GRANT LEGAL AID TO MAN GAOLED AFTER RIOTS

APPEALS COURT SPLIT ON WHETHER PRESSURE BROUGHT ON ARSONIST TO CONFESS

More Articles …

  1. Arthur Childs - Boxer Extraordinaire Part 2
  2. Two Detectives Commended
  3. Too Many Burglaries in Bermuda!
  4. Alan and Agness Waddicor
Page 49 of 75
  • Start
  • Prev
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • Next
  • End

 

 

 

 

 

Bootstrap is a front-end framework of Twitter, Inc. Code licensed under MIT License. Font Awesome font licensed under SIL OFL 1.1.