Retrial ordered for alleged facilitators of drug plane landing in Toledo

The case of six men accused of aiding in the landing of an alleged drug plane on the Southern Highway in 2012 concluded in the Court of Appeal late this evening.

Police officers Corporal Renel Grant, Corporal Nelson Middleton, Sergeant Lawrence Humes, and Sergeant Jacinto Roches; former Customs boatman Harold Usher, and civilian Victor Logan, were accused of facilitating one of the largest cocaine busts on record in Belize.

A plane famously landed on the Southern Highway on November 13, 2010, and nearby police and BDF found 80 bales of suspected cocaine - about 29,000 kilos, with a street value of close to $170 million Belize dollars.

But after trial in 2012, Justice Denis Hanomansingh refused to send the case to the jury on charges of abetment to import a controlled drug, believing that the men had no case to answer.

The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions duly filed an appeal and it was heard in part on Wednesday.

The attorneys for the accused, Senior Counsels Hubert Elrington and Simeon Sampson and Anthony Sylvestre, urged on the court today in their replies to DPP Cheryl-Lynn Vidal that their clients faced no evidence that would have convinced a jury reasonably directed to consider them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The missteps of the prosecution, according to Elrington, were what led to the decision of Justice Denis Hanomansingh to free the men, saying they had no case to answer.

However, at the conclusion of the case the panel of Manuel Sosa, Samuel Awich and Dennis Morrison announced that it would treat the hearing as the hearing of the appeal after it granted the leave to appeal.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict of acquittal and ordered a retrial before a Judge other than Justice Hanomansingh.

Senior Counsel Sampson told reporters afterward that they will just have to try again.

He told reporters that he was not disappointed over the ruling as the Court of Appeal carefully considered all the arguments, but he was careful to insist that his clients were and are not convicted and would get a second chance in the lower court.

Patrick Jones

Lawmen Will Be Re-tried for Landing Drug Plane



And there was another big decision coming out of the Court of Appeal just about an hour and a half before news time.

As we told you on Tuesday, the Director of Public Prosecution made an application to the Court of Appeal. She's trying to get the 5 law men accused of facilitating the landing of the drug plane on the Southern Highway to be re-tried.

As we told you, the 5 lawmen Police Corporal Renel Grant, Corporal Nelson Middleton, Sergeant Lawrence Humes, Customs Boatman Harold Usher, Sergeant Jacinto Roches, and civilian Victor Logan were all charged of abetment to commit a crime. The accusation was that they facilitated the landing of the plane, which resulted in the biggest drug cargo on record to enter Belizean soil, 5,704 pound of compressed cocaine.

They were acquitted before Justice Denis Hanomansingh, but in the application on Tuesday, DPP Cheryl-Lynn Vidal asked the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal of that outcome on the grounds that the judge made errors when he found that the circumstantial evidence was not enough for a jury to convict the accused men. She additionally complained that the judge conducted the trial in a manner which deprived the prosecution the ability to put all its evidence before the court.

In response, Defence Attorneys Anthony Sylvester, Simeon Sampson, and Hubert Elrington all submitted to the court that Justice Hanomansingh used his discretion properly throughout the trial, and that his conduct as judge was adequate enough that the Appeal Court need not overturn his decision.

After hearing their arguments, the Court of Appeal decided that the application for an appeal hearing was granted. Additionally, instead of rehearing the case, and they treated the appeal as already completed. The most significant part of their ruling this evening is that the Court agreed with DPP Vidal, set aside their acquittal, and ordered that they must be re-tried on the charge of abetment to commit a crime. It's a significant loss for these 6 men, 5 of whom took significant hits to their law careers when they were accused of corrupt, criminal behaviour. We got a reaction from their attorneys this evening, and here's what they told us:

Simeon Sampson, Co-counsel for Defendants


"It's not the end of the day, justice has been done, we fought like hell. The law had been expounded, all attorneys for the prosecution and the defense did what we had to do. All of us are wiser now especially when the Court of Appeal would have handed down a decision because right now we don't know what they accept or what they didn't accept and what is the reason for their decision. When we have received the written decision then we would be able to educate ourselves thereby. But I am not at all disappointed."

Hubert Elrington, attorney

"I am kind of disappointed, but we still hope that at the re-trial, we hope to get an acquittal."

Daniel Ortiz

"Can you explain briefly for us what you were trying to present to the court in response...?"

Hubert Elrington, attorney


"I am kind of what you called constitutionalist where law is concern. I believe that the rights of the citizen should be very clearly defined and I believe that if the prosecution says it has evidence, the evidence must not be so thin that you can convict a man and almost any evidence because the question was whether or not the presence of these people and the vehicle, the vehicle in which they were in on the highway could support the inference that they were somehow or the other involved in assisting a drug plane to land. There has been no direct evidence and the court seems to be saying that those two sets of evidence are sufficient to leave to a jury - let the jury decide. But in my view there should be more than that. There has to be some link which something, come drug on their person or somebody saw them or something else. It just can't be that. Two sets of facts are there and you are allowed ti infer from one that the people were involve in the other, so I have to abide by and accept the decision, but I am not persuaded that that is where our law is supposed to be. I think our law really needs to be strengthen when it comes to the rights of the citizen."

The re-trial is take place before a judge other than Justice Denis Hanomansingh.

Channel 7