On Thursday 28^th November Ray Kennedy-Smith Jr. of West Bay was found guilty by Justice Charles Quin of possessing a firearm in a judge alone trial.

The firearm was a loaded Smith & Wesson model 5906 pistol. that was recovered by a USG police officer outside the Memory Lane Bar in West Bay on 31^st July 2011. Also discovered with it were a ski mask and a pair of gloves. One of the gloves matched Kennedy-Smith’s DNA.

The Defendant, Kennedy-Smith, had pleaded ‘not guilty’.

The USG officer told the court he and two other officers were in a marked police car and they had driven into the car park of the Night Club known as Memory Lane.

The defendant and two other men were outside the bar and he noticed the men were behaving in a ‘fidgety’ manner. One of the men, the Defendant, immediately left, “to take a piss”, and it was the smell of ganga that alerted the police to investigate. They searched one of the men and found a spiff on him.

Upon the Defendant’s return, which was very quick, the officer concluded he had been gone for far too short a time to do what he had said and decided to search around the area where he had seen the suspect go. It was then he found the gun, the gloves and the ski mask by an air conditioning unit. The glove was on the ski mask and the ski mask was over the pistol,

The Defendant refused to take the stand and give evidence although he had stuck to his story that he had been urinating before the police arrived.

The police said the men were sweating profusely when they were being interviewed at the bar.

Although all the evidence was circumstantial, Judge Quin said, “It is not a coincidence that the gloves, ski mask and firearm were found together. Not only were the items found together, but also, it is common for these items to be used together for an unlawful purpose. We know that gloves are worn to prevent fingerprints and DNA being left on an illegal firearm. We also know that ski masks of the type found by [the police officer] are worn to conceal the identity of the person wearing it. I find that the gun, mask and gloves are inextricably linked, and the only commonsense inference is that they are used together in the furtherance of criminal activity.”

The Judge concluded:

“At the close of the prosecution case I informed the accused that the stage had been reached at which evidence could be given on his behalf, and that he could give evidence and indeed call evidence, and, that if he did not give evidence it would be permissible for the Court to draw such inference as may appear proper from his failure to give evidence.

“The Defendant has elected not to give evidence or call any witnesses and in this way he has not availed himself of the opportunity to present any reasons for his DNA matching the DNA found on the interior of  Exhibit  I  – the  burgundy glove. Additionally, the Defendant has not availed himself of the opportunity to explain his movements.”

“In my view, the Crown has presented a prima facie case for the Defendant to answer,” Justice Quin said. “The Defendant’s failure to give evidence and to call evidence means that there is no evidence before me capable of contradicting,  undermining, or explaining  the evidence for the prosecution against the Defendant. By not giving evidence, it is open to me to reach a conclusion adverse to the Defendant’s case. I have to ask myself whether that would be a fair and proper conclusion to  reach in all the circumstances of this case.

“Given all the evidence presented by the prosecution in this case I find that the only sensible explanation for the Defendant’s  failure to give evidence is that he had no answer to give, or none that would stand up to cross examination and scrutiny. I can find no other sensible explanation for the Defendant’s failure to give evidence or call evidence on  his behalf. Accordingly, I find that the Defendant’s failure to give evidence does add weight and support to the Crown’s case.”

In conclusion the Judge said, “When I examine all the evidence before me I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty, and accordingly, I find the Defendant guilty of the single charge on this Indictment.”