 On 2nd February 2017, I convened a meeting with the press to provide an update to the public on matters generating great public interest and concern. This included the status of investigations involving police shootings which spanned the period of 2010 to 2011. These shootings resulted in the loss of life of 12 citizens of this state in 2011. This figure sets the record for the highest number of police shootings ever recorded in this state within any given year. This attracted significant publicity both at a domestic and international level based on allegations that they were extrajudicial killings by the police. Simply put, they were alleged to have to a great extent to be unjustified and therefore illegal. Consequently, the government of the United States of America imposed sanctions widely referred to as the lay law or lay sanctions against our nation as these alleged illegal shootings were potentially gross violations of human rights. This resulted in the suspension of financial assistance and training to the entire Royal St. Lucia Police force from August of 2013. On 18th June 2021, the nation was informed of the restoration of support to particular departments of the Royal St. Lucia Police force. This indication has again risen or given rise to great speculation and concern from members of the public, the media and members of the Royal St. Lucia Police force as to which is regarding the status of the investigations surrounding these shootings. In my last address to you, I indicated that the investigations into matters under review were incomplete and as such craved the public's indulgence to exercise patience and to allow the investigative process of these matters to be completed. Sometimes, however, depending on the complexity of some investigations, the process may take a considerable amount of time. In this instance, it has taken years. I want to advise though that these investigations, due to their nature, have no statutory limitation period, meaning that there is no time limit for the investigation or institution of charges against persons where sufficient evidence is gathered. To do so, the police force therefore can continue investigations into such matters over a lengthy period of time. This may be as a result or consequence of lines of inquiry or evidence becoming available some years after the occurrence of an incident. I believe therefore that this is a convenient juncture to update the public on my continued review of these matters and to provide you with my decisions at this stage regarding the possible prosecution of persons involved and to address what has widely been referred to as the impacts report. It is important to set the record straight from the outset and make it perlucidly clear that my office does not conduct criminal investigations. The conduct of these investigations are within the remit of the Commission of Police and the Royal St. Lucia Police Force by extension. The function of my office as the Director of Public Prosecutions is to review these investigations submitted by law enforcement. My office therefore provides advice and guidance to the police investigators which include advice on the sufficiency of evidence gathered at any possible lines of inquiry to be explored. We would also provide advice on the evidential requirements of an investigation. The decision to prosecute anyone is determined by a great extent or to a great extent by the evidence gathered by investigators being sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. This would include for example evidence of an eyewitness who saw a crime occurring. Also there may be instances where forensic evidence can link an individual to a crime. However, opinions, speculation, suspicions as to who committed a crime is clearly not evidence upon which I can act. In December 2013 the government pursuant to the Police Complaints Amendment Act 2013 appointed a team of investigators from the Jamaican Constabulary Force to investigate the circumstances surrounding the police shootings which occurred during the period I've mentioned from the 1st of January 2010 to 31st December 2011. This team was given a terms of reference and commenced its investigations or inquiries from the 2nd of December 2013 to April of 2014. Subsequently, a final report was prepared and submitted to the government of St. Lucia. I am in receipt of a report and I have thoroughly reviewed this report. I want to state reference to this report that CARICOM impacts did not prepare this report and so it is actually incorrect to refer to it as the impact report. This investigating team was empowered as a force said by the Police Complaints Act as amended. It is important to note the specific provisions of the Act which governed the conduct and powers of the team. This specific section would be section 18 subsection 4 of the Act as amended. This section reads as follows. Notwithstanding subsections 2 and 3 of this section, the minister may appoint one or more persons to investigate any matter involving a member or members of the police force. Subsection 5 states that persons referred to in subsection 4 of this section may be appointed from within or outside St. Lucia. Any person or persons appointed to conduct such an investigation by the minister under subsection 6 of this Act have full powers to review such matters, conduct or order any and all investigations and request to undertake any analysis necessary and shall have the powers, authority, advantages and immunities given to the police officers under the Police Act in furtherance of the investigation and shall report to the minister. The minister being the minister of national security. It is vital that we also underline and refer to subsection 7 which reads as follows. Where in any investigation authorized by the minister, it appears to the investigator or lead investigator that there is a prima facie evidence or there is prima facie evidence of criminal conduct. He or she shall transmit to the director public prosecutions. All evidence, statements and other relevant material arising from the investigation. Subsection 8 provides that a previous finding by the complaints unit or the prior conduct of a coroner's inquest concerning the matter to be investigated shall not preclude an investigation from being authorized by the minister. Having outlined the relevant provisions of the Act, it is clear that the team of investigators from the Jamaican Constabulary Force was mandated to provide all evidence, statements and other relevant material to my office where in its opinion there was a prima facie evidence of criminal conduct. There was prima facie evidence of criminal conduct. Prima facie is a Latin term simply means at first sight. In other words, the instances in which the team opined that there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge, it was obligated to submit to the director public prosecutions all the evidence and relevant material resulting from its investigations. Today I can report that I am not in receipt of any material from the Jamaican Constabulary Force. Therefore, the final report provided by the Jamaican team does not amount to evidence or relevant material compiled in a criminal investigation that I am able to act upon. It however provided possible lines of inquiry and opinions all of which I believe should remain under seal to eliminate any possibility of unfair prejudice to anyone concerned. Consequently, there was an appointment of local investigators to conduct a review of the report provided by the Jamaican team and also to conduct homicide investigations into the matters under review. This was done notwithstanding the conduct of coroner's inquests into these deaths as per section 18, subsection 8 as I alluded to earlier. These officers have conducted investigations into the matters under review and others. Due to the nature of the investigations and the fact that external agencies are assisting in the investigations, I have to continuously conduct reviews of the evidence guarded thus far and offer advice where necessary. If I may refer to the matters under review and indicate that the fatal police shootings for the period which I mentioned that are under review or were under review are Jason Warriken shot by the police on the 12th of January 2011 about 2.30 a.m. at Bois Patat in the quarter of Castries. Kimron Simon shot and killed by the police on the 12th of January as well 2011 about 3 a.m. at Bois Patat. Ashley Bernard shot and killed by the police at Wilton's Yard Castries on 13th February 2011 about 12 p.m. Bertram Charles shot by the police on 17th February 2011 about 5 p.m. at Leclery in the quarter of Castries. Reginald Gea shot and killed by the police on the 28th of February 2011 about 1 p.m. at Marsha. Dwight Henry shot and killed by the police on the 12th of April 2011 about 3 a.m. at Marigold in the quarter of Anster Ray. Kevin Ferdinand, Rosarius Markey, John Baptist McFarlane, Mitchell Cadet and Alan Louisie were all shot and killed by the police about 3 a.m. on the 5th of May 2011 at Via Fort. Finally, Elicis Louie shot and killed by the police on 10th January 2012 about 5 p.m. at Bise in the quarter of Castries. I can confirm that I am in receipt of these case files in relation to all the matters I have mentioned and I have had the opportunity to thoroughly review all of them to assess the status of the evidence contained therein presently. I have advised, therefore, the Commission of Police of my opinion regarding the sufficiency of evidence provided to my office thus far. For obvious reasons, I cannot make public the contents of these files and I shall advise you of my position as it relates to these investigations to date. In relation to the shooting deaths of Jason Warrican, Kimnon Simon, Ashley Bernard, Bochum Charles and Elicis Louie, I have advised the Commission of Police that I do not find that there is sufficient evidence at this stage for any charges to be preferred against the officers concerned in these shootings. As it relates to the deaths of Reginald Gère, Dwight Henry, Kevin Fodenan, Rosarius Markey, John Baptist McFarlane, Michelle Cadet and Alan Louiezy. I have advised the Commission of Police that I find that there are further lines of inquiry to be explored therefore the investigations in these matters are active and I intend to provide a follow-up update on these matters in due course. This is the extent of my update to you at this time. I thank you.