359 / 494
358
against the Regulations. None of the testimony of the witnesses of the
security forces satisfied that legal test.
10.261
Neither CoP Ellington nor DCP Hinds was on the ground on
24 May and their evidence, at best, could only have been hearsay.
Even so, the criterion advanced by CoP Ellington was that the mass
detentions and separations which took place were done with a view to
remove thousands of civilians from “a hot zone”. On the other hand,
DCP Hinds’ rationale was that, initially, detainees had been suspected
of firing weapons at the security forces. We cannot accept that
hundreds of persons were initially detained on suspicion of firing at the
security forces. There was no evidence that any of the detainees were
found with guns or that large numbers of guns were found after
searches were conducted in Tivoli Gardens on 24, 25, 26 May. Counsel
for the security forces did not suggest to the detainees who gave
evidence that they were shooting at the security forces. And, when
persons were detained on 24 May, the JDF had entered the sectors and
secured them. The evidence reported elsewhere does not suggest that,
at the time of the first set of mass detentions, the areas were “hot”. As
early as 2.30 p.m. Lt. Col. Sewell had walked around the community.
10.262.
The evidence of the JDF Commanders who were the first to
enter the various sectors, is more persuasive as to the real reasons for
detention. They were given lists of wanted men; they heard that many
suspicious men were in Tivoli Gardens; and, wherever they came
across a group of men, they detained them without more. We believe
Maj. Kennedy that, certainly his troops, did not detain men on the basis
of suspicion of having committed criminal offences. It appears to us
that men were unceremoniously gathered up, confined to caged areas,
and then sent off to detention. The detentions were arbitrary and
illegal.