417 / 494
416
“tipped off” on 24 August 2009 after the Heads of the security forces
informed the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Security of an
imminent request for Coke’s extradition, is not of a quality that could
lead us to make any finding of communication between Coke and any
official of the GoJ.
12.16.
When Bishop Blair met with Coke on 19 and 22 May 2010,
it was entirely an initiative on the part of Bishop Blair. He was not an
agent of the Government of Jamaica. We doubt whether as Chairman
of the PMI, Bishop Blair could be properly designated as “an official of
the Government of Jamaica”.
12.17.
On 19 and 22 May, Bishop Blair visited Coke in his capacity
as Chairman of the PMI. We think that it was appropriate that he
consult the Prime Minister to inform him as Head of the Government
and Minister responsible for Defence, of his interest in having dialogue
with Coke with a view to persuading him to surrender.
12.18.
To the extent that the Commissioner of Police sent
messages to Coke by both Bishop Blair and Rev. Miller encouraging
Coke to surrender and assuring him of safe custody, we find that there
was
indirect
communication between the Commissioner of Police as an
official of the GoJ and Coke for the very laudable purpose of seeking
the avoidance of a violent and bloody confrontation.
12.19.
It was admitted during the hearings that Mr. Golding had
asked CoP Ellington to speak with Bishop Blair and Rev. Miller
concerning the possibility of having Coke surrender. These were
indirect communications
by the Head of the GoJ with Coke for the
purpose of seeking to avoid a violent confrontation between the
security forces and Coke’s criminal adherents. We find no impropriety