Judges: Madeiros beaten in Police custody
By Stuart Roberts
|
|
Rough justice?: The wife of Michael Madeiros took this photograph the day after he was released from Police custody.
|
|
|
|
The Court of Appeal said it accepted that a convicted drug smuggler and former Dunkley's Dairy employee Michael Madeiros was beaten in Police custody.
Madeiros, 39, and Steven Flood, 38, both of Belmer Drive, Devonshire were convicted on February 3, 2005, by a jury of conspiracy to import $2 million worth of cannabis in October, 2003.
But on March 23, 2005 six narcotics officers pleaded not guilty in Magistrates' Court to assaulting and causing bodily harm to Madeiros while in Police custody.
The same six were acquitted in August 2005 when Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner threw the case out.
"It was accepted at the hearing of this appeal that at sometime while he was in Police custody he was beaten and it was this that led to a statement sought to put into evidence being rejected," the Appeals Court Judges said in a written judgement handed down on Thursday. "As mentioned, Madeiros was arrested about 1.20 p.m. on October 24, 2003 and taken to a Police premises and from there to the dumpster where the four boxes were found."
The written judgment also revealed more details as to the decision last week to let the pair's ten year sentences stand. On March 13, 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed Madeiros' appeal on his conviction and Flood's appeal on his sentence because it said it was satisfied the convictions and sentences imposed by the Supreme Court last year were appropriate.
Madeiros' lawyer � Jamaican lawyer Frank Phipps QC � argued that Opposition MP Michael Dunkley's evidence that Madeiros had made certain admissions to him about importing drugs was prejudicial.
"Mr. Phipps make two points," the Court of Appeal said.
"Mr. Dunkley, he submitted, had an interest in protecting his company and his own reputation.
"Mr. Phipps submitted also that the conversation in question is said to have taken place about 23 November, but was not mentioned by Dunkley in a subsequent conversation with the Police, nor in his statement taken by the Police on 7 December."
However, the Court of Appeal said it was implicit in the jury's verdict that they accepted Mr. Dunkley's evidence that Madeiros told him he and Flood brought in 126 pounds of cannabis.
"He first refused, but later $5,000 was left for him and following that, a note with contact details, and he responded," it said. "It was for that reason that he and Flood were bringing in the drugs. He had since become concerned for his family and his own safety as a result of threatening phone calls made to him and his wife."
The Court of Appeal said this ground failed the test.
Mr. Phipps' last ground of appeal � "upon which he particularly relied" � was the legal principle that confessions should not be admitted when there was a charge of conspiracy.
The Jamaican barrister tried to argue that Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves made a mistake in his summation to the jury when he said � "That is the agreement right there. It's a matter for you to decide whether that is or not. In my opinion that is but you don't have to accept my opinion."
"We do not agree, particularly having addressed the passage in the context of the rest of the summation," the Court of Appeal said.
It said Mr. Justice Greaves was primarily outlines the "essence" of the agreement that constituted the conspiracy between Flood and Madeiros which was "obvious and inescapable" in light of all circumstantial evidence.
