Prison duty officer Sandy Mackey managed to stay out of prison after his attorneys were granted an extension to the stay of the coroner’s judgement against him.
On May 17, a Coroner’s Jury recommended that Mr Mackey be required to answer a charge of manslaughter for the death of inmate Neil Brown who escaped prison on the morning of January 17.
Brown, along with Barry Parcoi, Forrestor Bowe and Corey Hepburn escaped from their cells on the C-Block in the western section of Maximum security. During the escape, Corp. Deon Bowles met his death sometime after 4 a.m. when officers found him in a pool of blood and bound at his hands and feet.
After the decision of the jury, attorneys Wayne Munroe and Dion Smith managed to get a stay of the execution of the court order of Coroner Linda Virgill that Mackey be taken into custody. On Friday, Mr Smith had brief discussions in chambers with Supreme Court Justice Jon Isaacs.
Outside the court, the attorney explained that his client, who was also present in Bank Lane, would remain a free man until constitutional arguments on his behalf were put forward and determined. The next move is to put in an official request for the transcripts and the judgement of Coroner Linda Virgill on Monday. Once the documents are in hand a date could be set for the matter to be heard. Mackey’s attorney is of the view that his constitutional rights would have been violated after he was called to the witness stand.
Despite the fact that attorney Ian Cargill made representation as the attorney on behalf of the prison guards, Mr Smith said that was not the case.
Having spoken with both his client and Mr Cargill, the attorney said he (Cargill) was not retained to represent Mr Mackey.
“From the very outset I indicated to the court that it was our view that Mr Mackey’s constitutional rights had been infringed. He was not told certain things at the outset of the proceedings, according our instructions, and of course we stand to be corrected if we get copies of the transcript that say otherwise,” he stated. Mr Smith said he is not in possession of copies of the transcripts outlining exactly what would have taken place in the proceedings. With that in mind, he explained that “a constitutional motion or a constitutional argument is something that needs to be referred to the Supreme court. So, our main argument now is that she would have exeeded her jurisdiction in determining a constitutional issue which should have been referred to the Supreme Court for determination.”
The concern of the attorney is that Mr Mackey was not advised from the outset that his evidence could have been used against him and that he and his attorneys should have been in court throughout the proceedings.
“We are quite confident in our position thus far and I think Mr Mackey is also confident of our services,” he noted.
By: JIMENITA SWAIN, The Nassau Guardian
