Wilkie Arthur

Freelance Court Reporter

#TurksandCaicos, November 14, 2023 – Wednesday November 8th was the final day of a four-week-long unlicensed firearm and ammunition trial being held at the Grand Turk Supreme Court.

On trial for the unregistered gun and 12 rounds of ammunition was JEAN ETIENNE DOR aka FIRE of Five Cays, Providenciales.

Magnetic Media was in court for the jury decision in the matter, the accused having been on remand for over a year.  A five-member jury; three women and two men with one of the males, speaking on behalf of the jury as the foreman, delivered their conclusion after only two hours of deliberation.

Before being sent out for deliberation by the learned trial, Judge the Hon Mr. Justice Chris Selochan took around three hours with one break in between, to sum up the entire four week trial to the jury, reminding them repeatedly of what was the case against the accused and what was his defense in response to the Crown’s case.

The judge outlined to the jury, what was the law in relation to unregistered firearms and ammunition possession.  He explained the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution in criminal cases but he told the jury, that, there is a bit of burden that rest on the defendant as it relates to when one is charged with illegal possession of unregistered weapons.

Judge Selochan explained to the jury how they are to approach consideration of the evidence presented in the case against the accused.

The Judge took the jury back to the date of the police findings on  April 25th, 2022, when a team of officers arrived at the home of Jean ETIENNE DOR armed with a warrant.  Although the warrant was in the wrong name (not in the name of the accused), a search of the premises was conducted and found was a firearm in or on top of a barrel covered by a blanket in a room not occupied by the accused.

The wrong named warrant was raised as an issue during the trial by the senior defense counsel, Lara Maroof Misick.

The judge went on to tell the jury of certain things the accused said to the Police when and after the firearm was found. Even though, these various, different utterances were challenged and denied by the defendant, when it was his turn to give evidence in his own defence on the stand.

The judge reminded the jury, in his lengthy summing up, that they have to treat the case of the defense, with the same weight and importance as the prosecution’s case.

He went on telling them that it’s a matter for them how they regard the account of events as reported by the Police Force at the time of the search and arrest and what the accused man testified in the witness box.

The judge reminded the five member jury, when counsel for the defendant Mrs. Maroof Misick asked the officer(s) for notes, pertaining to their investigation stages, the officer(s) did not have any notes for some important areas, activities and alleged utterances of their investigation.  The jury heard that what was important in that fact, as laid out by the defence attorney Maroof-Misick, is those notes – if they were signed by Jean Dor – could have been supplied to them, as members of the jury for review during the trial.  Without that information, the judge said it was left for the jury to decide who they believe.

The police had said, the defendant told them he had someone living in that room where the firearm was found. He gave them a name that was mentioned in court. He said the person had recently left.

When testifying, the female officer who found the gun did admit to having had to remove clothing before reaching the blanket and under or in the blanket she found the gun; the gun was not in plain sight.

According to the Crown’s case, ETIENNE DOR had told police he was supposed to turn the gun in to a pastor.  The judge continued and explained, the Crown is therefore saying Mr. Dor had knowledge of the gun in that room, which he said was, until recently occupied by a different man.

The Defendant’s version of events to the jury may have been more believable had the defendant’s DNA not been found in such a high ratio on the firearm, after it was forensically tested.  During the trial, it was submitted that the DNA on the green and black gun came back with a strong, positive match for Jean Etienne Dor.

Still, during the judge’s summation the jury was reminded that the defense had an explanation for the DNA presence on the gun; that it could have been transferred there.

The DNA expert, when he testified did explained how transfers can and do occur as was possible in the instant case against the accused.  The police did admit that certain testing and packaging of the firearm and ammunition was done in the open, in the presence of the accused.  This suggests that his DNA could have been transferred on the firearm through communication while the gun was already in Police possession.

Evidence during trial also revealed that Dor’s was not the only DNA found on the firearm; other persons DNA was detected on the gun as well.

The police also said when the accused was asked about the gun, he said how his mother has a shop and plenty people round here robbing.  He said he has bills, he works at the airport for some 14 years.  He also said, I can’t explain it, it’s a long story.  He initially had Chal Missick as his attorney when some of these many utterances were said.

The judge told the jury that throughout the investigation and the trial the defendant had a right to remain silent and nothing negative could have been taken from that because that would have been his right.

In the end, and after a mere two hours, the jury announced it had a decision and found the evidence as presented by the DPP’s office was believable; they found Jean Dor guilty as charged.

Sentencing in this matter is fixed for November 27th, 2023.

Senior Public prosecutor Ms. Tassja Mitchell represented the office of DPP in this trial.  The defendant is facing seven years in prison for the firearm and the ammunition conviction.