Log In

Reset Password

Pembroke man tells court how he was shot in the buttock

First Prev 1 2 3 Next Last

A Pembroke man was shot in the buttock after stepping out from a party to urinate, a Supreme Court jury has heard.

The victim, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, gave evidence on the opening day of the trial of four men charged with a catalogue of offences, including attempted murder.

Jahkeil Samuels, 27, Jamin Saltus, 23, and Ronniko Burchall, 22, pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder of the man, conspiring to murder a second, unknown person, and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence.

A fourth defendant, Alex Vanderpool, 22, denied a charge of handling a firearm.

Questioned by prosecutor Carrington Mahoney, the 24-year-old victim told the jury that he went to a party at a house on Mission Lane, Pembroke, on the evening of February 28 last year.

He acknowledged that he “drank a lot” at the party and that, at around 1am, decided to go outside to urinate.

The victim said he crossed the road and walked to some trees, but before he could relieve himself, he noticed that someone else was present.

“I looked up and saw a person - he had a mask on his face,” the victim said.

“I didn’t stop to look, I just turned and ran in the opposite direction, towards North Shore Road.”

The victim said that, as he fled in fear, he heard the crack of four shots behind him. He jumped a wall to escape the gunman and as he did so, felt a pain in his lower back.

“I kept running until I got to North Shore and then noticed I was bleeding,” the man said.

The victim was able to flag down a passing car which took him to hospital for treatment.

Asked by Mr Mahoney to provide details of who had been at the party, the victim replied: “I can’t remember - it was so long ago. I ain’t gonna name everybody.”

The witness could also only provide vague answers to further prompts from Mr Mahoney to describe the gunman.

But he did insist that the shooter could not have been defendant Ronniko Burchall. When questioned by lawyer Craig Attridge, who is representing Mr Burchall, the victim said that he was a close friend of the accused, before adding: “I could see from his frame that it wasn’t him.”

Before the witness took the stand, Mr Mahoney outlined the Crown’s case to the jury.

The prosecutor said that further testimony would be provided by another witness who was asked by defendant Jahkeil Samuels to stash the 9mm gun for safekeeping.

“Somewhere in the early part of February, he (the witness) was approached by Samuels to keep a CD - which is a codeword for a firearm,” Mr Mahoney explained.

The lawyer added that the weapon was seized by police following the commission of a second, unrelated crime, and that ballistics tests later showed that the gun was the same as that used during the Mission Lane shooting.

And he said that, in seeking convictions for all four defendants, the Crown would be using the legal principle of joint enterprise, where “in pursuance of a joint enterprise, each is liable for the actions of the other”.

The trial, being heard before Justice Stephen Hellman, resumes today. Mr Samuels is represented by Marc Daniels while Mr Saltus is represented by Elizabeth Christopher and Charles Richardson is acting for Mr Vanderpool.

Accused: Alex Vanderpool, who denies a charge of handling a firearm, and Jahkeil Samuels, who faces charges including attempted murder, appeared in Supreme Court on Friday (Photo by Glenn Tucker)
Ronniko Burchall denies attempted muder (Photo by Glenn Tucker)
Jamin Saltus denies attempted muder (Photo by Glenn Tucker)

You must be Registered or to post comment or to vote.

Published May 20, 2013 at 9:00 am (Updated May 19, 2013 at 11:03 pm)

Pembroke man tells court how he was shot in the buttock

What you
Need to
1. For a smooth experience with our commenting system we recommend that you use Internet Explorer 10 or higher, Firefox or Chrome Browsers. Additionally please clear both your browser's cache and cookies - How do I clear my cache and cookies?
2. Please respect the use of this community forum and its users.
3. Any poster that insults, threatens or verbally abuses another member, uses defamatory language, or deliberately disrupts discussions will be banned.
4. Users who violate the Terms of Service or any commenting rules will be banned.
5. Please stay on topic. "Trolling" to incite emotional responses and disrupt conversations will be deleted.
6. To understand further what is and isn't allowed and the actions we may take, please read our Terms of Service
7. To report breaches of the Terms of Service use the flag icon