When televised scenes of four members of the Vieux Fort Special Services Unit (SSU) beating up on former Soca Monarch and musician Andrew “Yardie” Haynes, were shown during our local newscasts, the public was outraged. The footage showed the policemen kicking, dragging and dumping Haynes aboard a police vehicle. He was also shot in the left leg in the process.

The incident took place on Clarke Street, Vieux Fort, on September 13, about 2:45 pm. Haynes was taken to the St Jude’s Hospital, where he spent seven weeks.The incident resulted in several charges being laid against both parties: Haynes was charged on 13 counts and he in turn filed 14 complaints against police. Though the civil suit still stands all other charges on both sides were dismissed during the last hearing on June 26, 2009.But the police officers involved in the case feel that they have been wronged. For fear of being victimized they did not want us to divulge who among them spoke out.According to the officers, they wrote to Commissioner of Police, Ausbert Regis, requesting legal representation, but they never got any response. They said they applied twice—in February and then in May.

“They said they did not get a copy the first time, so we reapplied,” one of the officers told us.

The application stated words to the effect: “The above mentioned police officers hereby request for legal representation based on cross-charges brought against the police, whilst executing their duties.”All four constables who were involved in the incident signed the letter, which was also carbon copied to all heads of department.The officer explained that legal representation was supposed to be automatic since they acted while on duty.

“But we just went ahead and put it in writing,” he said.
According to him, their case against Yardie could have continued, since disclosure was made since January and the prosecution had all the “necessary ingredients” to proceed. He said the prosecution had all the statements, the virtual complainants were present and they (the officers) were “ready to give evidence.” He, however, admitted that three of the witnesses were no-shows.

He also stated that it was the other party, Haynes’ attorney who had not given disclosure. According to him, the attorney had been given until May 18th, 2009 to do so but had not delivered.Asked whether they that the authorities acted against them when they do their jobs, the officer responded that this is not necessarily the case but they just want justice to be served.

“We don’t have the support of the commissioner of police. You feel you are doing something within your powers (as an officer) whilst on duty but then we are left on our own,” he said. He added that when they do something, which “looks good in the public eye” such as a drug bust or recover firearms, they are praised but when it’s a police shooting, the police are always wrong.

“What is happening—nothing,” he said.

The STAR also contacted two of his colleagues who were also involved in the incident. They too sounded passionate about the matter.One stated that the “Minister responsible for the police” never paid them a visit, but he went to the hospital to see Yardie.

“We got ourselves in a situation with Yardie and in the process he got shot, it is really unfortunate but the Minister never came to see us,” he said. He said since they were not granted legal representation they “stood on their own.”
“We are not dumb, we are trained, so we submitted that it was disrespectful to the court that disclosure had not been made,” the officer said. The third officer viewed the excuse given by the prosecutor, as to why he could not proceed with the case, as “lame.”
According to the officer, the prosecutor had stated that he had only received the file the morning of the hearing.
“It’ s a shame that the prosecution could not go on with the police matters, because the VC’s and investigating officer were present and disclosure had already been done,” he said.
“I find it so hard to believe that the prosecution unit is so much in disarray when it is a highly publicized matter,” the officer added.
The case, which was presided over by Magistrate Andy Daniel, was dismissed on June 26th, 2009.
The STAR met up with Haynes whilst he was in Castries with his son. Commenting on the matter he said: “After nine months, the system got frustrated, because they realized these guys had no case.”
He denied the statement by the police that disclosure had not been made.
“We were always ready to proceed . . . they had the disclosure, they had everything, the only problem these guys had, they did not have somebody to represent them,” he said.
The police commissioner was contacted on the matter and he confirmed that the correspondence from the police was received but said he does not have the authority to provide legal consul.
“The request was forwarded to the office of the Attorney General, through the Ministry (of Home Affairs),” he said.
He added that only when he got response, he could have passed it on to the officers. However that was not forthcoming.
The A-G is, however, said to be representing the State in the civil suit filed by Haynes.