The Calistra Farrier case

Commissioner of Police
Fort George
St. George

July 16th, 2018

Dear Sir,

It is every citizen’s right to pursue justice.

I write to draw to your attention and express my concerns as a fellow citizen on the above mentioned matter, specifically as it relates to the handling of the investigation and prosecution of the case against the individuals who had been arrested and charged for attacking a Journalist.

After being properly educated as to the events that led to the dismissal of the criminal case against two senior election campaign staff of the ruling NNP who were recorded on video attacking journalist Calistra Farrier, I am left even more convinced our justice system has been and is compromised.

The RGPF’s Prosecution Department has undoubtedly played a failed role in her pursuit of justice. It is now public knowledge that Ms Farrier’s case was dismissed for want of prosecution, on the grounds that she, the witness, was not present at the time dedicated to honour her right to live unmolested, as a citizen and by extension, an agent of the fourth arm of Government (Press).


– Ms Farrier was not the only person present at the time of the incident.

– Ms Farrier was not the only witness to the incident.

– A proper and genuine dedication to seek justice would have mandated the Prosecution Department (RGPF) to secure the statements and witness testimony of the persons present at the time of the incident.

– Ms Farrier was told by an officer attached to Central Police Station that “he was not on her side” and “ah doh have time for da” when he related the date of the first court appearance to her and queries were raised regarding one of the charges which had been laid.

– The officer is not being paid to state personal opinion (exhibit bias/break the public’s trust in the RGPF) and act contrary to police regulations but to enforce the country’s laws in an effort to maintain desirable order.

– In the police statement Ms Farrier recounts that her life was threatened with several witnesses within earshot however officers decided to lay a charge of “abusive language” and not the warranted “threatening language”.

* “Abusive language” minimises the perception of detail.

– The prosecutor refused Ms Farrier the opportunity to provide additional evidence, stating he had already acquired sufficient, which consisted only of the single statement provided to the police by Ms Farrier as the virtual complainant.

– Ms Farrier attended court on two occasions; both of which inconvenienced her twice in one day (at 0900 hrs only to be told she needs to return at 1300hrs, which she did).

– The defense recruited the legal representation of Mr Ruggles Ferguson after the Honourable Peter David apparently recused himself from the matter at the first hearing in late March. At which time the defense was given the opportunity, upon the defense’s request, to adjourn the matter for an astonishing fourteen (14) week period.

– Due to unforeseen circumstances Ms Farrier, against her will, was unable to attend the rescheduled hearing on July 2nd, 2018 at the time expected.

– The Prosecutor along with his/her team, realising Ms Farrier was unusually absent did not contact her (Ms Farrier) via cell phone.

– Ms Farrier, in good faith, personally provided the Prosecutor with her number prior to July 2nd, in case there was need to contact her.

– Ms Farrier had never given any indication to the prosecution at any time leading up to July 2nd that she was no longer interested in having her day in court.

I humbly suggest that in your capacity as Commissioner of Police, you will launch an immediate and thorough investigation into the police handling of the matter from the moment it was reported, including the fact that they omitted to refer such a serious matter as the attack of a member of the Fourth Estate, to the Office of the DPP for appropriate handling.

Considering the facts, I am left constitutionally disturbed!

Earl J. Maitland

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.