Sgt. Brenton Smith,
I have reviewed the internal charges that was laid against you, by the authority of the Royal St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force. These charges were based on allegations that were made against you by senior members of the Royal St. Vincent and the Grenadines police Force. The allegations on which these charges are based are very serious allegations: of "Mutinous Conduct" or charges to that effect. This implies that you being a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and a member of the S.V.G Police Force, you were or have been involved in some form insurrection against some authority and or their commanders. In other words, your actions have been as such that they are equal to an instance of revolt (starting a revolution) against civil authority or an established government.
The foregoing is the accusation and the conclusion of the SVG Police Force authority. Because the institution that is the Royal St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force is only law enforcement authority in the state and by virtue of the fact, their primary function is law enforcement; the police management cannot use any other definition but the legal definition to frame their charge against you, be it a criminal or internal charge. However, the evidence that the police authority is using to come to such conclusion is an isolated voice clip that you were alleged to have send to members of your executive via What's App.
It is important to note that the points to prove or the burden of prove for any allegation of mutiny are the same no matter where the trial takes place. It is important to know that the police has the option, to either charge such people in the open court system or they can deal with the allegations internally. However an internal trial, do not in any way, reduce the burden of prove, or magically changes the points to prove the offence. A military or paramilitary trial does not change the law that governs the offence. I have asked myself; with the seriousness of the allegations that was brought against Brenton Smith, why the police authority did not bring criminal charges against Brenton Smith in open court, but rather choose to charge Mr. Smith internally. I will here conclude the reason, the DPP did not indict Sgt. Brenton Smith, is due to the fact the DPP realized that there was no evidence to prove the allegations that was brought against Sgt. Brenton Smith. The reality with this case is, there is no evidence to support the allegations that was made against Sgt. Smith; the burden of proof does not change, because the matter will be tried before a police tribunal.
The evidence that led the SVG police authorities to accuse you (Sgt. Brenton Smith) of a treasonous act is the below quote: “One of the things I was ‘thinking’ today, that we must be so angry that we storm the Prime Minister’s office, all the executive members. No authority, we ain’t asking no body permission to go” The first thing I will say about this expression is that it is incoherent, in that this in one of the times Sgt. Brenton Smith had some difficulties communicating his thought; that is because Sgt. Smith thoughts were undeveloped and was not dwell upon for any significant length of time.
I have reviewed the internal charges that was laid against you, by the authority of the Royal St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force. These charges were based on allegations that were made against you by senior members of the Royal St. Vincent and the Grenadines police Force. The allegations on which these charges are based are very serious allegations: of "Mutinous Conduct" or charges to that effect. This implies that you being a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and a member of the S.V.G Police Force, you were or have been involved in some form insurrection against some authority and or their commanders. In other words, your actions have been as such that they are equal to an instance of revolt (starting a revolution) against civil authority or an established government.
The foregoing is the accusation and the conclusion of the SVG Police Force authority. Because the institution that is the Royal St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force is only law enforcement authority in the state and by virtue of the fact, their primary function is law enforcement; the police management cannot use any other definition but the legal definition to frame their charge against you, be it a criminal or internal charge. However, the evidence that the police authority is using to come to such conclusion is an isolated voice clip that you were alleged to have send to members of your executive via What's App.
It is important to note that the points to prove or the burden of prove for any allegation of mutiny are the same no matter where the trial takes place. It is important to know that the police has the option, to either charge such people in the open court system or they can deal with the allegations internally. However an internal trial, do not in any way, reduce the burden of prove, or magically changes the points to prove the offence. A military or paramilitary trial does not change the law that governs the offence. I have asked myself; with the seriousness of the allegations that was brought against Brenton Smith, why the police authority did not bring criminal charges against Brenton Smith in open court, but rather choose to charge Mr. Smith internally. I will here conclude the reason, the DPP did not indict Sgt. Brenton Smith, is due to the fact the DPP realized that there was no evidence to prove the allegations that was brought against Sgt. Brenton Smith. The reality with this case is, there is no evidence to support the allegations that was made against Sgt. Smith; the burden of proof does not change, because the matter will be tried before a police tribunal.
The evidence that led the SVG police authorities to accuse you (Sgt. Brenton Smith) of a treasonous act is the below quote: “One of the things I was ‘thinking’ today, that we must be so angry that we storm the Prime Minister’s office, all the executive members. No authority, we ain’t asking no body permission to go” The first thing I will say about this expression is that it is incoherent, in that this in one of the times Sgt. Brenton Smith had some difficulties communicating his thought; that is because Sgt. Smith thoughts were undeveloped and was not dwell upon for any significant length of time.
No one can truly come to a conclusion of what Brenton Smith was trying saying here. but rather, they could speculate on what he meant to say. No one has that authority, especially when you are dealing with the law and word crimes to speculate or conclude on intent where none was clearly provided. In such cases the evidence must be above speculation. lets us take the time out of all things to considered and to put the key words and phases in this statement into every day usages context, then we may come to a conclusion as to what he did not say, and if his words constituted an offence.
Let us examine the first phase. “One of the things I was thinking today”. This is the first indication that all Brenton smith did was to share with members of the welfare Association a though. It is not even an opinion it is just a random though that just popped into his head. It seems like the St. Vincent and the Grenadines police authority is trying to making thinking illegal. Well until Ralph E. Gonsalves take a bill to the St. Vincent and the Grenadines House of Parliament in an effort to stop all Vincentian like himself (unable to think) from thinking, then thinking is not illegal.
“That we must be so angry” This is where the ambiguity comes in, not that we are, or that we have to become angry, but we will have to be so angry. The only person can tell you what this phase means is Brenton Smith.
“That we storm the Prime Minister’s office” It will be important to note that the word storm is use to give the impression that you went to a person office, unexpected and or uninvited. Each of us has stormed into our boss’s office to express some grievance at one time of the other. No if Sgt. Smith used the word Bomb rush: which means to stampede, which show a violent act that can create chaos.
“Authority, we ain’t asking no body permission to go.” This mean we ain’t going through the normal channel. Reason being the Prime Minister has a history of avoiding any meaningful discussion, where he is expected to address real problems of his constituents. And when he is in discussion he always have some fancy manipulative excuse to Wiesel his way out of addressing the issues that need to be dealt with.
While would Sgt. Smith say we are not asking permission if he had plans to first go to the prime Minister’s office to start an insurrection. This will be equivalent to Murices Bishop asking Eric Gairy permission to begin the revolt. This phase show that smith was not thinking about anything but to get the prime Minister into an discussion, before he come up with some plans to side tract the discussion as he is accustom to.
The words “it must hit the news and hit it big”, We must also remember that Sgt. Smith did not say, he is going to the press, however, like everything else that have happened, there are those who get their hands on the information and publish the same, with the direct participation of those directly involved. We must not forget, this is a though that popped into Sgt. Smith’s head; it is a common desire that everyone has. We all hope that the things we do, be it a good or bad deed, that is it recognized. Further if such a thing did happen, (Sgt. Smith and the executive of the P.W.A executive) go to the Prime Minister’s office uninvited and unannounced it must hit the news. Such events will so hit the news, because it has never been done before.
Let us examine the first phase. “One of the things I was thinking today”. This is the first indication that all Brenton smith did was to share with members of the welfare Association a though. It is not even an opinion it is just a random though that just popped into his head. It seems like the St. Vincent and the Grenadines police authority is trying to making thinking illegal. Well until Ralph E. Gonsalves take a bill to the St. Vincent and the Grenadines House of Parliament in an effort to stop all Vincentian like himself (unable to think) from thinking, then thinking is not illegal.
“That we must be so angry” This is where the ambiguity comes in, not that we are, or that we have to become angry, but we will have to be so angry. The only person can tell you what this phase means is Brenton Smith.
“That we storm the Prime Minister’s office” It will be important to note that the word storm is use to give the impression that you went to a person office, unexpected and or uninvited. Each of us has stormed into our boss’s office to express some grievance at one time of the other. No if Sgt. Smith used the word Bomb rush: which means to stampede, which show a violent act that can create chaos.
“Authority, we ain’t asking no body permission to go.” This mean we ain’t going through the normal channel. Reason being the Prime Minister has a history of avoiding any meaningful discussion, where he is expected to address real problems of his constituents. And when he is in discussion he always have some fancy manipulative excuse to Wiesel his way out of addressing the issues that need to be dealt with.
While would Sgt. Smith say we are not asking permission if he had plans to first go to the prime Minister’s office to start an insurrection. This will be equivalent to Murices Bishop asking Eric Gairy permission to begin the revolt. This phase show that smith was not thinking about anything but to get the prime Minister into an discussion, before he come up with some plans to side tract the discussion as he is accustom to.
The words “it must hit the news and hit it big”, We must also remember that Sgt. Smith did not say, he is going to the press, however, like everything else that have happened, there are those who get their hands on the information and publish the same, with the direct participation of those directly involved. We must not forget, this is a though that popped into Sgt. Smith’s head; it is a common desire that everyone has. We all hope that the things we do, be it a good or bad deed, that is it recognized. Further if such a thing did happen, (Sgt. Smith and the executive of the P.W.A executive) go to the Prime Minister’s office uninvited and unannounced it must hit the news. Such events will so hit the news, because it has never been done before.
We must still bear in mind that Sgt. Smith’s opening statement, “I was thinking today.” We must also not lose sight of the fact that he did not asked, encourage or insight anyone to act, and he was not expressing anger but was trying to imagine how angry they (the executive members of the PWA) must will have to get to go to the PM office uninvited and unannounced to discuss the neglect of the men and woman who so faithfully put their life on the line to ensure law and order is maintained in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
1. I will conclude by saying that in the quote, Sgt. Smith did not say he was going to do anything illegal or unethical.
2. He did not encourage anyone to storm the Prime Minister’s office. But only expressed of an increment thought that popped into head. It was nothing but a man thinking out loud. It was not the plan, of Sgt. Smith to in courage anything.
On the issue of violation of the Media policy, it is important to note that the police authorities do not understand their own force order and therefore can be called or considered ignorant to its interpretation. Let us deal with charge number 1 which was derived from Force order Sec. 4 Sub. sec. (2) and (7). It is the intent of this force order to safeguard, against behavior such as is in none cyber regulation. It is the intent of this force order to safe guard against the use of the internet to promote and or to publicize any such behavior using social media. Eg. Of such is:
1. Posting video of public unkindness,
2. Posting obscene and any such photo.
3. Being a bully using cyberspace.
4. Using his office to stalking intimidating a person etc.
It is unfortunate that the SVG police authority does not understand and know the difference between, Social Media and a "Communication Platform". Whats App is not a social Media as it out lined in charge 1. But it is a communication platform. It will be important for the polie administration to know that Wats App is a Communication platform, like Skype, Viber, Majic Jack etc. Although social media like facebook has communication plat form as a part of their net work, there is still a different between social Media and an internet or cyber communication platform. Wats App is a free internet of cyber communication platform - a phone service that is powered by internet technology. It has the capability to preformed all of the activity that can be done by a domestic or cell phone phone, it will also be important to note, that Wats App cannot function on any device unless it has an active, register cell phone number. and offers feature that allows users to make individual private calls, to conference call, sending voice message, and sending voice messages and text messages to groups and numerous people at the simultaneously. all depend on the update of the app that is available.
It is important to know, that any law enforcement or government authority, who have just cause to monitor, review and or access any such information, then that government or law enforcement, must get written permission to do such from the appropriate court. If no such authority is sought, then, that law enforcement agency or government body have break the law, and have impede on the rights of any such victim. In this case Brenton smith is a victim of a crime that was committed by the Royal SVG Police Force.
1. I will conclude by saying that in the quote, Sgt. Smith did not say he was going to do anything illegal or unethical.
2. He did not encourage anyone to storm the Prime Minister’s office. But only expressed of an increment thought that popped into head. It was nothing but a man thinking out loud. It was not the plan, of Sgt. Smith to in courage anything.
On the issue of violation of the Media policy, it is important to note that the police authorities do not understand their own force order and therefore can be called or considered ignorant to its interpretation. Let us deal with charge number 1 which was derived from Force order Sec. 4 Sub. sec. (2) and (7). It is the intent of this force order to safeguard, against behavior such as is in none cyber regulation. It is the intent of this force order to safe guard against the use of the internet to promote and or to publicize any such behavior using social media. Eg. Of such is:
1. Posting video of public unkindness,
2. Posting obscene and any such photo.
3. Being a bully using cyberspace.
4. Using his office to stalking intimidating a person etc.
It is unfortunate that the SVG police authority does not understand and know the difference between, Social Media and a "Communication Platform". Whats App is not a social Media as it out lined in charge 1. But it is a communication platform. It will be important for the polie administration to know that Wats App is a Communication platform, like Skype, Viber, Majic Jack etc. Although social media like facebook has communication plat form as a part of their net work, there is still a different between social Media and an internet or cyber communication platform. Wats App is a free internet of cyber communication platform - a phone service that is powered by internet technology. It has the capability to preformed all of the activity that can be done by a domestic or cell phone phone, it will also be important to note, that Wats App cannot function on any device unless it has an active, register cell phone number. and offers feature that allows users to make individual private calls, to conference call, sending voice message, and sending voice messages and text messages to groups and numerous people at the simultaneously. all depend on the update of the app that is available.
It is important to know, that any law enforcement or government authority, who have just cause to monitor, review and or access any such information, then that government or law enforcement, must get written permission to do such from the appropriate court. If no such authority is sought, then, that law enforcement agency or government body have break the law, and have impede on the rights of any such victim. In this case Brenton smith is a victim of a crime that was committed by the Royal SVG Police Force.
The people who have violated Brenton Smith and the other members of the Police Welfare Association rights should have formal criminal charges brought against them and Sgt. Smith and those injured by their actions should received monetary damages for their victimization.
All in all, Sgt. Breton Smith has become a target because he refuses to toe the line and compromise his role of chairman of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Welfare Association, in his pursuit to represent the constabulary as the members of the Police Welfare Associations.
Recommendation:
Before there is a trial (Orderly Room), the lawyer for the Police Welfare Association need to write to the commissioner of police, and asked the commissioner of police to produce the written authority from the court that give them the authority to invade the private communication of Sgt. Brenton Smith and the other members of the welfare association.
The police commissioner is going to lie and say they have an informant within the PWA who provide the information to the authority; however, it will be important to note, that a police officer cannot be an informant. A police officer is by law sworn to uphold the law without fear and favor, and in any case a police cannot be an informant. A police officer who obtained evidence to the commission of any offence be it a crime in any of its degree, or an infraction, he or she becomes a witness. Therefore, the commissioner of police by law, has an obligation to disclose the name of all witness.
Therefore that so call informant must be made to give evidence and their name should be place in the police list of witness. In lull of such police witness, the police commissioner is also obligated to show the lawyer of the police welfare association the lawful written authority that gave the police the permission to lawfully listen into, record and review Sgt. Smith’s phone calls and cyber communication as well as those of the executive of the Police Welfare Association, and its members. The police cannot give to themselves such authority.
All in all, Sgt. Breton Smith has become a target because he refuses to toe the line and compromise his role of chairman of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Welfare Association, in his pursuit to represent the constabulary as the members of the Police Welfare Associations.
Recommendation:
Before there is a trial (Orderly Room), the lawyer for the Police Welfare Association need to write to the commissioner of police, and asked the commissioner of police to produce the written authority from the court that give them the authority to invade the private communication of Sgt. Brenton Smith and the other members of the welfare association.
The police commissioner is going to lie and say they have an informant within the PWA who provide the information to the authority; however, it will be important to note, that a police officer cannot be an informant. A police officer is by law sworn to uphold the law without fear and favor, and in any case a police cannot be an informant. A police officer who obtained evidence to the commission of any offence be it a crime in any of its degree, or an infraction, he or she becomes a witness. Therefore, the commissioner of police by law, has an obligation to disclose the name of all witness.
Therefore that so call informant must be made to give evidence and their name should be place in the police list of witness. In lull of such police witness, the police commissioner is also obligated to show the lawyer of the police welfare association the lawful written authority that gave the police the permission to lawfully listen into, record and review Sgt. Smith’s phone calls and cyber communication as well as those of the executive of the Police Welfare Association, and its members. The police cannot give to themselves such authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment