163 / 494
162
7.86.
However, we have concerns about CDS Saunders’ decision
to use mortars. We treat with this decision in detail in Chapter 10 and
Chapter 14.
7.87.
On the evidence adduced, considerable doubt is cast upon
the claim that the purpose of detention was the protection of citizens.
We find, on a balance of probabilities, that the purposes of detention
were to make the area of operation safe for the security forces who
remained there from the afternoon throughout the night of 24 May and
to facilitate the processing of young men who were present in Tivoli
Gardens at the time of the operation. The detentions were made
AFTER various areas had been pacified or after high intensity violence
had subsided or ceased. CoP Ellington’s assertion that detentions
occurred “as we battled criminals on the ground” is at variance with
other credible evidence. It is at variance with timelines given by
officers who were on the ground and civilian witnesses to the effect
that detentions took place after sectors 1, 2 and 3 had been stabilised
and the JDF was dominating those sectors.
7.88.
We find that women, children and elderly persons were
under-represented among the detainees. The vast majority were in
fact males. CoP Ellington’s assertion would lead to the conclusion that
young adult males were provided with special protection by means of
detention and the risks to under-represented detainees were ignored.
7.89.
The JDF’s medical plan was comprehensive and was of
benefit to some of the injured. However, it is clear that it was
inadequate in the light of the large number of injuries and deaths that
occurred. We think that both branches of the security forces were
taken by surprise by the number of injured and deceased persons.
Ms. Robinson’s case highlights the unresponsiveness she encountered,