323 / 494
322
10.145.
He was rigorously cross-examined by Mr. Terrence Williams and
agreed that “at none of the targets did I have a radius of 700 metres safety
distance and, at the football field, the radius would have been 60 metres”.
Moreover, he said –
“I believe I could have fired the mortars safely into the
football field by the Community Centre even though it was in
a built-up area. The grave risk to human life was not lost on
me. The decision to use mortars in Tivoli Gardens put at
grave risk the lives of persons who were not a threat. There
are risks inherent in using mortars but, in many ways they
are safer than rifles provided the operators have the
appropriate training experience.”
10.146.
He did not agree that mortars are intrinsically inaccurate. He
described them as “a larger type of grenade” which could cause an IED to
explode if the mortar landed on an IED. Maj. Dixon spoke of an Observer who
was placed on a building in such a way that “he could reasonably see what he
needed to see”. The Observer’s role and function were –
“to tell me if the field into which I was firing was safe. Part
of the role was to tell me if the round landed where it was
supposed to land. His function was one of safety to tell me
‘Field is clear or not clear’. He reported to me that the
second round had landed and I saw the mark.”
Letters of Capt. Chester Crooks
10.147.
On 23 August 2012, the Public Defender, Mr. Witter, wrote to the
JDF seeking information
“(a) regarding precisely what were the types of
incendiary devices (mortars or others) were
discharged, as well as the tactical nature, targets
and strategic objectives of their discharge; and
(b)
the reason why discharge of these devices was
thought to be appropriate.”