A second Pastor giving evidence in the trial of a Policeman accused of punching a man in the face a man has questioned the accuracy of written Police statements given shortly after the incident.

Pastor Leroy Bean told a court he was with Eversley Zuill when two Police officers arrived and pinned Mr. Zuill to the ground before one of the officers allegedly punched Mr. Zuill three times in the face.

The Magistrates? Court trial had previously heard Mr. Zuill lost a number of teeth as a result of being punched.

Police officer Glynn Kellman has denied a charge of assault causing grievous bodily harm while detaining Mr. Zuill in February 2005.

During cross-examination Mr. Bean questioned the accuracy of the Police statement which bore his signature.

However, the officer that wrote up the statement later told the court that he took it ? and corrected it ? in Mr. Bean?s presence.

According to Mr. Bean?s evidence in court he had been standing beside Mr. Zuill?s car outside a church on North Shore Road, Hamilton Parish, when two Police officers had stopped and taken Mr. Zuill from his car and wrestled him to the ground.

Mr. Bean said he had clearly seen the officers restrain Mr. Zuill, but in his written statement taken two days after the incident on February 24 last year, it was recorded he told Police he had been sitting in the back of Mr. Zuill?s car at the time.

Mr. Bean said that was not correct. He explained that while giving the Police statement he had been asked to sign two blank pages.

?Some of the statement looked scuffed ? untidy. The first couple of pages were okay, so the officer said he was going to clean it up when he got back to the (Police) station. So he gave me blank pages to sign, which I signed,? said Mr. Bean.

?There are some things in the statement that are not what I was doing. Some of it is untrue. I was not in the back of the car.?

The apparent inconsistencies caused Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner to order the Police officer who took the statement be brought to the court to give clarification. And he criticised the normal practice of only typed versions of Police statements being presented in Magistrates? Courts rather then original handwritten copies as happens in Supreme Court.

?That is a bad practice and should stop. It leads us to these situations which is unacceptable. How can you defend a client when you are not sure what is on the original statement?? he said.

The officer who took the statement, Detective Constable Adrian Jones, of Eastern CID, later denied that blank pages had been given to Mr. Bean to sign. He added that he took a statement from Mr. Bean at his home on February 26 last year. The detective said Mr. Bean told him what he claimed happened between Police and Mr. Zuill, before he read over the statement and made corrections in the presence of the witness. He added: ?I do not recall recording any other statements.?

The alleged statement discrepancy echoed one that appeared during the opening day of the trial when another witness, Pastor Ronald Smith similarly denied he had told Police he?d seen Mr. Zuill punch officer Kellman despite it being written that he had in his original Police statement.

Defence lawyer Allan Doughty showed Mr. Bean the hand-written statement and asked him to verify if each of the pages, except for the final page, had been signed with his initials. Mr. Bean said the pages appeared to have been signed by him.

Mr. Bean told the court he had been with Mr. Zuill on the morning of the alleged assault and had been given a lift in Mr. Zuill?s car to check his church after a report of possible vandalism.

After taking a few minutes to check at the rear of the church he had returned to the front and called Mr. Zuill to ask where he had gone, almost immediately Mr. Zuill drove back up and parked his car. Mr. Bean said he had gone to the passenger door and saw one of Mr. Zuill?s young sons was now sitting in the front passenger seat.

He said a Police car then arrived and stopped in front of Mr. Zuill?s car. Mr. Bean said: ?The officers got out. Their demeanour and facial expressions were aggressive.?

Mr. Bean said one of the officers was white, the other (Kellman) was West Indian.

?I went to identify myself. The West Indian cop walked towards the car and the white cop pushed me aside,? he said.

He told the court Kellman put his hands into the driver?s side of the car through the open window to take out the keys and ordered Mr. Zuill to get out.

?Eversley said he was trying and was questioning the Police as to why,? said Mr. Bean. He then explained how Mr. Zuill and Kellman had been standing face-to-face when Kellman grabbed Mr. Zuill?s arm and forced him to the ground, where he was joined by the white officer who helped hold Mr. Zuill down.

According to Mr. Bean, an unmarked Police car then arrived and a plain-clothed officer rushed across to also pin down Mr. Zuill.

He said they had placed one of Mr. Zuill?s hands in handcuffs, adding: ?He was pinned down. He could not do anything. His hands were in front of him and his chest was towards the ground. I then saw the arresting officer punch Eversley in the face.

I said ?Why did you hit him, he ?I said ?Why did you hit him, hewas restrained?? He then struck Eversley again in the face and then again.?

Mr. Bean said he saw blood coming out of Mr. Zuill?s nose and he was making choking noises.

Defence lawyer Mr. Doughty asked Mr. Bean if he had intervened in the incident by pulling the white officer?s arm out of Mr. Zuill?s car as he and the other officer (Kellman) tried to get the car keys, and if he had been threatened with arrest for interfering with an arrest. Mr. Bean replied: ?No.?

Mr. Doughty then asked Mr. Bean if he had seen Mr. Zuill hit the white officer and strike the black officer twice after he got out of his car, and if he had seen Mr. Zuill pull Kellman to the ground and punch him again. Mr. Bean said: ?No.?

Earlier in the day Crown Counsel Paula Tyndale said officer Kellman had told Mr. Zuill that he was being arrested for taking a child without its mother?s permission. During re-examination of witness Mr. Zuill she asked him if he had ever been charged with the offence. Mr. Zuill said he had not.

Meanwhile, Senior Magistrate Mr. Warner is due to rule today on whether the officer on duty with Kellman on the day of the alleged assault should be called as a prosecution witness.

Ms Tyndale said the Crown did not intend to call the officer, but Senior Magistrate Mr. Warner said that he was a primary witness and accused the prosecution of ?hiding witnesses? that the court heard might weaken the Crown?s case. Ms Tyndale denied hiding witnesses, but Mr. Warner said the DPP must act in the interests of justice and ensure a fair trial.

Defence lawyer Mr. Doughty said he did not want to call the officer as a defence witness, because under the law he would lose his ?fundamental? right to question him in court.

The case continues today.