She said public pressure had “no influence” on her decision

Last Tuesday, July 8, five members of the family of Myron Smith, a homicide victim for whose murder no arrest has yet been made, returned to their Giles Street home for a repast in his honor, but were instead arrested and charged by police, amidst a murky set of circumstances, with two offenses under the draconian Firearms Act, which stipulates automatic remand to prison for 90 days.

They were remanded to the Central Prison when they appeared before Senior Magistrate Sharon Frazer, who arraigned them on the two firearm charges. Their next scheduled court appearance was set for August 21.

Today, however, a removal order from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions landed them back before the Senior Magistrate.

The DPP’s directive, which was dated yesterday, Monday, July 14, was for the firearm charges to be withdrawn from the five members of the Smith’s family and also from against a 17-year-old minor, who is not related to them.

The charges remain for a 16-year-old minor, who wanted to plead guilty last Tuesday when all seven persons were arraigned on charges of keeping an unlicensed firearm and keeping unlicensed ammunition.

After the family members had been in lockdown for almost 8 days, the warrant for their removal was sent to the prison yesterday, but it was not until after 12:00 noon today that they were brought to court, so they had to wait until court resumed at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate Frazer could formally withdraw the charges and free them.

On Monday, July 7, police arrested and charged Alrick Smith, 52, a construction worker; his common-law wife, Sandra Casey, 47; his son, Leon Smith, 22; his daughter, Tamika Smith, 19; his niece, Ishaida Brooks, 20, who is the mother of a young baby; and two minors, ages 16 and 17.

The arrest and subsequent imprisonment of the Smith family sparked outrage as the details of the police’s actions became known.

Police in a mobile patrol unit said that they saw a young man running. They followed him and he ran up the stairs and into the Smith’s Giles Street home. When the police entered the residence, they found the young man hiding in a bathroom.

Police decided to search the house and their search uncovered a .9mm handgun that was loaded with 13 rounds.

Under the Firearms Act, everyone who is present when a firearm or ammunition is found is deemed to be “in possession” of the gun or ammo.

On the basis of the wide sweep of the Firearms Act, the police decided to arrest everyone who was present inside the house, and they were all charged with possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition, which carries a 5-year mandatory imprisonment term under the latest amendment to the Firearms Act.

In a lengthy text message to KREM News editor Marisol Amaya, Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryl-Lynn Vidal said she was flipping through the television channels and saw an interview on KREM News, in which a woman who was being interviewed on the Smith’s case expressed the view that public pressure may have played a role in the DPP’s decision to withdraw the charges from the Smith family.

Vidal, however said, “Public pressure DOES NOT ever factor into a decision made at my office.”

Vidal went on to state, “I need to clarify that I DID NOT give any directive in this matter. I was contacted when the persons were detained and I spoke with the outgoing commander of the precinct and I was satisfied that, on the evidence that was available to them at that stage, that the individuals had been properly detained.”

The DPP further asserted, “Contrary to what is being said, my information is that police DID NOT SEE the man run into the house with a firearm, nor did anyone give the police any account to suggest that he did. A statement was LATER provided to the police by someone who claimed to have seen what had happened and who claimed to have been afraid to speak before. The matter was then reviewed by a Crown Counsel in the office in light of the new evidence and a directive was given. When police act improperly, I have no sympathy for them, but I was satisfied based on what was communicated to me at the outset that the police had acted legally.

“With the greatest of respect, I think that your people really need to disabuse their minds of this perception that their opinions (which I am hardly ever aware of) or public outcries influence decisions. We act based on law, ethics and within the boundaries of our code.”