THE GOVERNMENT is to pay $6 million with interest to a man who was freed by the Court of Appeal in 2003 after spending almost three years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Neville Williams, a 28-year-old, construction worker of Maryland, St Andrew, who was convicted of rape and sentenced in May 2001 to seven years' imprisonment, had filed the suit in the Supreme Court.

After Williams was convicted, it was discovered that DNA evidence had not been given at his trial.

Dr Randolph Williams, who represented Williams on appeal, made an application to call for fresh evidence. The court was told that the DNA results were available before the trial, but had not been not collected by the police.

No match

Government analyst Sherron Brydson testified in the Court of Appeal that the DNA of the semen found on the complainant's underwear, and the DNA of the semen found on Williams' underwear were different.

The Court of Appeal freed Williams in November 2003 after hearing the fresh evidence.

After Williams was released from prison, he filed a suit in the Supreme Court against the complainant, Detective Sergeant Carlton Henry, and the attorney general seeking damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Alternatively, he sought damages for negligence.

The Government did not accept liability and the suit went to trial before Supreme Court Judge Almarie Sinclair-Haynes.

Attorneys-at-law André Earle and Anna Gracie, who represented Williams in the civil suit, argued that the police had not investigated the case properly.

Williams contended that the complainant had a motive for framing him. He said it was because of an altercation they had had.

Reasonable, probable cause

Lawyers from the Attorney General's Department contended that the policeman had acted with reasonable and probable cause and there had been no negligence in the investigation.

Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn, QC, was called as a witness for defendants Detective Sergeant Carlton Henry and the attorney general. Llewellyn's statement was tendered in evidence and she was not cross-examined.

Llewellyn said in the statement that she had given a television interview after Williams was freed in which she said the incident was regrettable and the Office of the DPP took full responsibility. She said the statement was meant to express sympathy for Williams and had not intended as an admission of wrongdoing on the part of anyone.

Justice Sinclair-Haynes, in handing down judgment in favour of Williams, referred to the indignity which Williams suffered. She said Williams was shackled at the police station after he was arrested and had to hand over his underwear. She also referred to Williams' testimony that he was beaten and stabbed while in prison.

The judge expressed concern that because of Williams' incarceration, he lost contact with his child and her mother, who was his girlfriend at the time of his arrest.

barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com