JahDore walks free in police assault case

Reggae artiste JahDore, who was accused of assaulting a policeman and tearing his shirt during an incident at a police station in 2019, after his children and their mother were detained, was on Friday found not guilty in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court.

JahDore, whose real name is Sean McDonald, was charged with assault, obstructing the police, and malicious destruction of property following an altercation at the Gordon Town Police Station in St Andrew. The incident followed a police visit to his home to investigate allegations that he failed to ensure his two stepsons attended school.

He was acquitted by Chief Parish Judge Broderick following a trial that began in 2021.

McDonald had also been freed of the school attendance charges in 2021 after his attorneys-at-law, Hugh Wildman and Indira Patmore, argued that no offence had been disclosed under Section 24 of the Education Act.

The attorneys submitted that the provision did not authorise the police to charge a parent simply for failing to ensure that a child of compulsory school age attended school. They argued that the section dealt with a parent’s failure to comply with a notice from an educational board requiring a child to undergo an examination by a medical officer.

Regarding the alleged assault at the station, the prosecution’s case was that McDonald and a constable became involved in an altercation that escalated into a fight. McDonald was accused of tearing the constable’s uniform and kicking him.

However, McDonald testified that he was holding his young child in his right hand in the station’s guard room when the police behaved aggressively towards him. He denied kicking any of the officers.

The entertainer said the cop pulled his common-law wife, whom he referred to as “his empress”, towards a barrier before punching him in the right jaw and eye.

His account was supported by a medical certificate, which was agreed upon by the prosecution and defence and admitted into evidence.

McDonald also maintained that the police had entered his premises without authorisation and had not shown him a warrant or explained any lawful basis for their actions. He said he had informed the officers that his children were being home-schooled.

During the trial, Wildman argued that the police had acted unlawfully in taking McDonald and his family to the station, contending that the officers had no legal basis to enter his premises or detain them.

No warrant

He submitted that the police had gone to McDonald’s home without a warrant and in the absence of evidence that an offence had been committed. He said despite McDonald’s explanation that the children were being home-schooled, he was instructed to accompany the officers to the station.

Wildman further argued that the police had breached McDonald’s constitutional rights to privacy and liberty, as well as his protection from arbitrary detention.

The attorney contended that the police had no legal basis to detain McDonald, the children’s mother or the children under Section 24 of the Education Act, which he said did not create an offence simply for failing to send a child to school.

He argued that the provision instead empowered the education minister to give directions concerning children requiring special educational treatment, with the relevant offence arising when a parent failed, without reasonable cause, to comply with a notice issued by an educational board requiring a child to undergo a medical examination.

Wildman maintained that there was no evidence that such a notice had been served on McDonald and that the police, therefore, had no lawful basis to conclude that he had breached the act.

The attorney also argued that the medical findings supported McDonald’s account that he had been assaulted by the police and that the prosecution had failed to establish its case.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com