Ruddock insisted on giving caution statement, court hears

Murder accused Andre Ruddock insisted on giving a caution statement and repeatedly declined the services of duty counsel, the Pathways murder trial heard yesterday.

One of the two justices of the peace (JPs) who witnessed the statement told the court that when Ruddock was advised about securing the services of a legal aid attorney, he refused, saying he wanted to give the statement because he had done something wrong and needed to “get it off his chest”.

The JP, a telecommunications engineer, testified in the Home Circuit Court that he and another JP were allowed to speak privately with Ruddock at the Montego Hill Police Station in St James in October 2018, before he gave a caution statement and participated in a question-and-answer session.

Ruddock was arrested and taken into custody the previous day following an alleged sacrificial killing at the Pathways International Kingdom Restoration Ministries church in St James, where church member Taneka Gardner was killed after her throat was cut.

The trial previously heard from a detective constable that Ruddock, 36, had confessed to killing Gardner, claiming he was instructed to do so by the now-deceased church leader, Kevin Smith.

According to the JP, Ruddock was asked whether he wanted legal representation or duty counsel, which provides free legal assistance, but declined.

“I recall enquiring about his welfare, whether he had something to eat or drink, or whether he was beaten,” the witness said.

Ruddock replied that he was fine in respect of eating or drinking and that he had not been beaten or treated badly, the court heard.

The JP said he also asked Ruddock whether he wanted legal representation or duty counsel, but Ruddock said no and indicated that he wanted to give a statement.

“We enquired into whether he was being coerced, and he said no, he had done something wrong and just needed to get it off his chest.

“We told him that there was no rush to give a statement and that he should consider duty counsel, and he stated that he just wanted to give the statement,” the witness testified.

According to the witness, Ruddock was also asked whether he was being coerced and indicated that he wanted to give the statement of his own accord.

The police were subsequently invited back into the room and advised to caution Ruddock properly before taking his statement.

The JP testified that Ruddock was not forced, threatened, harmed or intimidated into signing the caution statement and that no inducement was offered.

He also said Ruddock made no complaint that the detective constable had beaten him, pulled a gun on him, physically assaulted him or promised him a lawyer. He said there was no complaint that any other police personnel had physically assaulted Ruddock or promised to get him a lawyer.

The witness said Ruddock was told that he could give his statement without interruption and would be allowed to read it over and make corrections or additions.

Ruddock gave his statement without interruption and made no changes when invited to review it, the JP testified.

He said he and the other JP witnessed the signing of the document and affixed their signatures and seal.

The witness further testified that Ruddock was given another opportunity to speak privately with the JPs before the question-and-answer session but opted to proceed with them present.

During the session, Ruddock was asked 42 questions, all of which he answered, the JP said. He maintained that nobody directed Ruddock on how to respond and that the answers were given freely.

At the end of the session, the questions and answers were read back to Ruddock, who was told that he could make additions or corrections. The witness said Ruddock made none before signing the document.

The JP described both procedures as fair and said Ruddock was given sufficient time to respond. He also described Ruddock as calm, contemplative and cooperative during their interaction.

Earlier in the trial, a detective inspector who had led the taking of the caution statement and the question-and-answer session testified that Ruddock signed the documents after they were read over to him and made no corrections to the recorded answers.

The inspector, who was a sergeant at the time and has served in the Jamaica Constabulary Force for 33 years, also testified that Ruddock did not request an attorney during either process and did not object to the presence of the JPs.

Under cross-examination by attorney Venice Brown, the detective inspector outlined the procedure followed when a person suspected of murder is brought to a police station.

He explained that enquiries would be made about whether the suspect had legal representation and, if necessary, the police would contact the Legal Aid Clinic or seek assistance from JPs.

The detective agreed that private consultations were important to allow a suspect to receive legal advice. However, he acknowledged that he had not ensured that the camera was switched off when the police left the room to allow the JP to speak privately with Ruddock.

He maintained, however, that both the taking of the caution statement and the question-and-answer session, which were video-recorded, were conducted fairly.

He also maintained that Ruddock complied with both processes and gave the caution statement of his own free will. He said Ruddock was not coerced, threatened, intimidated or offered any inducement.

The JP will continue his testimony today.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com