R v Bush (Roger Davard) - Verdict Judgment

¶ JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 1 of 97 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 1 CRIMINAL SIDE 2 3 INDICTMENT NO: 0038/2021 4 5 THE QUEEN 6 7 v. 8 9 ROGER DAVARD BUSH 10 11 12 13 Appearances: Mr. Andrew Radcliffe K.C. with Ms. Sarah 14 Lewis, for the Crown 15 16 Mr. Oliver Blunt K.C. instructed by Mrs. Lee 17 Halliday-Davis of Brady Attorneys for the 18 Defendant 19 Before: Justice Marlene I. Carter (Actg.) 20 Judge Alone Trial Heard: 10th – 27th June 2022 21 22 Final Submissions Received: 27th July 2022 23 24 Delivery of Verdict Judgment: 27th September 2022 25 26 27 HEADNOTE 28 Criminal Law – Trial by Judge Alone - Murder – Circumstantial Evidence 29 30 The names of certain Crown witnesses in this case, “NE”, and “COE” as well as 31 other persons referred to, “CL”, “JE” and “CT” have been anonymized 32 throughout this judgment. 33 34 35 VERDICT JUDGMENT 36 37 38 39 40 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 2 of 97 INDICTMENT 1 2

¶ [1] The Defendant is before the Court having been charged on an Indictment dated the 22nd day of 3 June 2021. That indictment was amended, only in respect of the spelling of the Defendant’s middle 4 name and dated the 9th day of September 2021. 5 6

¶ [2] The indictment charges the Defendant as follows: 7 8 i. Count 1: Murder, contrary to s.181 of the Penal Code (2019 Revision) - the 9 Particulars of the offence being that the Defendant, on the 12th day of November 10 2019, in the vicinity of 89 Miss Daisy Lane (“MDL”), West Bay, Grand Cayman, 11 Cayman Islands, murdered Shaquille Demario Bush. 12 13 ii. Count 2: Possession of an Unlicenced Firearm, contrary to s.15(1) and 15(5) of 14 the Firearms Act (2008 Revision) - the Particulars of the offence being that the 15 Defendant, on the 12th day of November 2019, in the vicinity of 89 Miss Daisy 16 Lane, West Bay, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, had in his possession a 17 Remington Arms 9mm Luger firearm, which was not under and in accordance 18 with the terms of a Firearm User’s (Restricted) Licence. 19 20

¶ [3] The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty to both counts on the Indictment. 21 22

¶ [4] Pursuant to s.129 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Defendant elected trial by Judge Alone, 23 signing the required form on the 26th of May 2022. 24 25 26 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 3 of 97 THE LAW ON JUDGE ALONE TRIALS 1

¶ [5] The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA) has given some guidance on the 2 duties of a Judge in a Judge Alone trial. In K. Richards v R1 Rowe JA, stated: 3 “When a trial judge sitting alone has advised himself to the applicable 4 principles of law, and given himself any necessary warning, he must 5 indicate clearly in his judgment his reasons for acting as he did in order 6 to demonstrate that he has acted with the requisite degree of caution in 7 mind and has therefore heeded his own warning. No specific form of 8 words is necessary for this demonstration, what is necessary is that the 9 Judge’s mind upon the matter should be clearly revealed.” 10 11

¶ [6] In Randy Martin v R2, Mottley JA stated as follows: 12 “A judge sitting in a criminal case without a jury, in rendering his 13 decision and giving his reasons for so concluding in not required to 14 review every fact and to detail each argument on which the prosecution 15 and defence rely as if he were summing up to a jury. The judge must set 16 out the conclusion reached and make clear the reasons for arriving at 17 that conclusion. He is required to have regard to any difficult or unusual 18 points of law and to show how those points of law has in any way 19 impacted the conclusion that he has reached.” 20 21

¶ [7] In the case of Dioncicio Salazar v The Queen3 the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) quoted 22 with approval from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland in R v 23 Thompson4 in which it was said of the duty of a judge sitting alone in a bench trial: 24 “He has no jury to charge and therefore will not err if he does not state 25 every relevant legal proposition and review every fact and argument on 26 either side. His duty is not as in a jury trial to instruct laymen as to every 27 relevant legal aspect of the law or to give (perhaps at the end of a long trial) 28 a full and balanced picture of the facts for decision by others. His task is to 29 reach conclusions and give reasons to support his view and, preferably, to 30 notice any difficult or unusual points of law in order that if there is an appeal 31 it can be seen how his view of the law informs his approach to the law.” 32 33

¶ [8] The CCJ continued: 34 1 2001 CILR 496 2 CICA Crim. Appeal No. 2/2010 (Ind. 27/2009) 3 [2019] CCJ 15 4 [1977] NI 74 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 4 of 97 “Equally, a judge sitting alone and without a jury is under no duty to 1 “instruct”, “direct” or “remind” him or herself concerning every legal 2 principle or the handling of evidence. This is in fact language that belongs 3 to a jury trial (with lay jurors) and not to a bench trial before a professional 4 judge where the procedural dynamics are quite different (although certainly 5 not similar to those of an inquisitorial or continental bench trial).” 6 7

¶ [9] As in all criminal trials the burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 8 Defendant committed the offences for which he is on trial. 9 10

¶ [10] There is no burden on the Defendant to prove that he is innocent. There is no onus on the 11 Defendant to prove anything at all. The Defendant has no obligation to prove that he is not guilty, 12 or to explain the evidence offered by the Prosecution. 13 14

¶ [11] As in all criminal trials the burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 15 Defendant is guilty of the offence for which he is charged on the Indictment. There is no burden 16 on a Defendant to prove that he is innocent. The Defendant has no obligation to prove that he is 17 not guilty, or to explain the evidence offered by the Prosecution. 18 19

¶ [12] I will not review every single detail of the evidence, but I will address my mind to the important 20 or prominent aspects of the evidence in deciding the critical issues in this case. I will not decide 21 every single point that has been raised – only such matters that will enable me to determine 22 whether the charges on the indictment have been proved. 23 24

¶ [13] I will have regard to the whole of the evidence that has been presented at trial and form my own 25 judgment about that evidence. The questions of fact at issue on this trial are for me to determine. 26 27

¶ [14] I will consider all of the evidence in this case against this defendant and, if after having done so, 28 I have any reasonable doubt as to whether the Defendant is guilty or not, I must resolve that doubt 29 in favour of the Defendant and find him not guilty of the offence for which he is charged. 30 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 5 of 97

¶ [15] On the other hand, if having considered the evidence I am satisfied so that there is no reasonable 1 doubt in my mind, and I am sure of the guilt of the Defendant, then it will be equally my duty to 2 find him guilty as charged. 3 4 5 ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER 6 7

¶ [16] A person commits the offence of murder if, being of sound memory (mind) and discretion, he 8 unlawfully kills another person and, at the time, he intended, either expressly or impliedly, to kill 9 or to cause that other person grievous bodily harm. 10 11

¶ [17] In order to find the defendant guilty of the offence of murder, the onus is on the Prosecution to 12 make me sure of each of the following: 13 14 i. That the defendant is of sound memory(mind) and discretion; 15 ii. That the deceased is dead; 16 iii. That he (the deceased) died of injuries inflicted by the defendant; 17 iv. That when the defendant inflicted the injuries he did so with the intention to kill 18 the deceased or cause him grievous bodily harm; and 19 v. That when the defendant inflicted the injuries on the deceased, he did so without 20 lawful justification. 21 22

¶ [18] It is not in issue between the Prosecution and the Defence that the defendant is of sound memory 23 (mind) and discretion. Further, it is not in issue that the deceased, Shaquille, is dead, and that he 24 died on the 12th day of November 2019. 25 26

¶ [19] In order to make me sure of the third ingredient, that is, that the deceased died of injuries inflicted 27 by the defendant, the Prosecution must first make me sure that the defendant was the assailant. 28 29 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 6 of 97

¶ [20] To prove the identity of the attacker as being the Defendant, the Prosecution relies on the direct 1 evidence of NE and COE and, on circumstantial evidence. 2 3

¶ [21] If the Prosecution makes me sure that the defendant told NE and COE of his involvement and 4 responsibility for the shooting of the deceased, and also makes me sure on the circumstantial 5 evidence that this (the defendant’s guilt) is the irresistible inference that must be drawn from that 6 evidence, then the Prosecution would have satisfied this part which relates to the identity of the 7 defendant as the murderer. 8 9

¶ [22] If I am sure that the defendant shot the deceased, the Prosecution must then make me sure that the 10 injuries inflicted by the defendant caused his death. In this regard, the Prosecution relies on the 11 evidence of Dr Rouse who noted that the cause of death was gunshot injuries. There is no issue 12 between the Prosecution and Defence on this issue. Both accept the cause of the deceased’s death. 13 14

¶ [23] In order to make me sure of the fourth ingredient, that is, the intention of the defendant when he 15 shot the deceased, the Prosecution relies on the number of the gunshot wounds and the evidence 16 of the pathologist as to the manner of death. Dr Rouse described that two of the deceased’s injuries 17 – one to the back of his head passing through the occipital bone (the bone at the back of the skull) 18 and right occipital lobe, and the other to his left chest, which was also backwards (ie from behind) 19 and penetrated the deceased’s left chest cavity, left lung, heart, spine and ended up fracturing his 20 right shoulder blade – were each individually fatal in their own right and each was likely to cause 21 immediate collapse and/or death. With regard to these two wounds Dr Rouse’s opinion is further 22 accepted, that, as set out in the prosecution’s closing submissions: 23 24 “…those two most serious wounds described by Dr Rouse tell their own story; 25 first, having passed through the left lung and aorta, Wound 2 struck Shaquille’s 26 spine and would have resulted in the loss of the use of his legs and his 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 7 of 97 immobilisation and collapse. He would not have moved from where he was when 1 he received that injury. Secondly, as to Wound 1, the head wound to the back of 2 the head, this was angled downwards, suggesting, in Dr Rouse’s expert opinion 3 that Shaquille was collapsing at the time or had already collapsed. From this, Dr 4 Rouse states it might be inferred to represent a coup de grace.” 5 6

¶ [24] The Prosecution also rely on the evidence from the scene of the shooting from which they ask the 7 Court to infer that the deceased was pursued by his attacker who was firing shots at him during 8 this pursuit. If I am sure that the defendant was the shooter and inflicted these injuries on the 9 deceased – injuries which caused his death – I can infer from these actions of the shooter (i.e. 10 firing shots at Shaquille Bush whilst in pursuit of him) and the evidence of the manner of death, 11 that the defendant had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased. 12 13

¶ [25] To prove the fifth element of murder, I must be sure, that if the defendant killed the deceased, he 14 did so without lawful justification. 15 16

¶ [26] I note that this case does not involve self-defence or any other circumstance which would make 17 the killing lawful. 18 19

¶ [27] In order to find a verdict of guilty, the Prosecution must make me sure of each of the elements of 20 murder as stated above. 21 22

¶ [28] The defence has indicated to the court that the defendant takes no issue with the chronology set 23 out by the Crown in the closing remarks of counsel for the prosecution regarding how the deceased 24 met his death. As a result, I have utilized sections of the closing remarks of the Prosecution that 25 are agreed as to the cause and manner of the deceased’s death as I set out the elements of the 26 offence of murder above. 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 8 of 97

¶ [29] The result of this agreement between prosecution and defence as to how, on the evidence, the 1 circumstances of the murder progressed at MDL resulting in the death of Shaquille Bush, means 2 that there is no issue that certain of the elements of murder that need to be satisfied have been 3 satisfied on the prosecution’s case; as well as 4 5

¶ [30] I say therefore that I am satisfied and feel sure of two of elements of the offence: 6 7 (a) That the Defendant is of sound memory (mind) and discretion; and 8 (b) That the deceased is dead. 9 10

¶ [31] It is agreed that the remaining issue for this Court’s determination is whether this Court is satisfied 11 that it was the defendant who murdered Shaquille Bush. For the prosecution to succeed it must 12 satisfy this court beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who inflicted the injuries to 13 the deceased which caused his death. If the Court so finds, it is open for the Court to find, as 14 stated above, that the when the injuries were inflicted on the deceased that they were inflicted with 15 the intention to kill the deceased and also that there is no lawful justification for the infliction of 16 such injuries. 17 18 COMMON GROUND 19 20

¶ [32] The Prosecution states5 that how the deceased was murdered is not in dispute – as the totality of 21 the evidence makes clear: 22 i. This was a callous, brutal and cowardly murder. 23 24 ii. 15 spent 9mm cartridge casings were recovered from the scene by SOCO Reid 25 (shown in the scene photographs (Tab 6) and Reid’s hand drawn plan, LR1S (Tab 26 5 Paragraphs 32-34 are taken from the closing submissions of the Crown JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 9 of 97 7, p1) at his numbered markers 1, 3-8, 10, 21, 26-30) as were 3 expended bullets 1 (at markers 2, 31 and 35) and 5 bullet fragments (at markers 9, 22, 23, 24 and 34). 2 At the post mortem examination 3 further bullets were removed from Shaquille’s 3 body – from the back of his right shoulder area, from his back and from the right 4 side of his head. The entry wound for the last mentioned was through the back of 5 his head. 6 7 iii. All the spent cartridge casings were fired from the same gun. Where recovered 8 bullets were not too badly damaged, they have been established to have been fired 9 from the same weapon and where they were badly damaged, nevertheless either 10 because of rifling or Class Characteristics they, too, may have been fired from the 11 same gun – the damage likely preventing any further certainty. 12 13 iv. In short, expert analysis has determined that there is nothing to indicate that more 14 than one firearm was used in this case. 15 16

¶ [33] The Prosecution asks: Are there logical, irresistible conclusions that must be drawn from the 17 expert evidence in this case? The Crown proceeds to suggest that there are, as follows: 18 19 i. The first is that Shaquille was unarmed and defenceless when he was killed – that 20 is self-evident if there was only one firearm used during this incident; 21 22 ii. He was shot down in what was described in opening this case as a hail of bullets; 23 24 iii. Two of his injuries – one to the back of his head (Dr Rouse’s Wound 1), passing 25 through the occipital bone (the bone at the back of the skull) and right occipital 26 lobe, and the other to his left chest (Dr Rouse’s Wound 2) which was also 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 10 of 97 backwards (ie from behind) and penetrated Shaquille’s left chest cavity, left lung, 1 heart, spine and ended up fracturing his right shoulder blade – were each 2 individually fatal in their own right and each was likely to cause immediate 3 collapse and/or death. 4 5 iv. It follows that both of these would have been inflicted where his body was found, 6 surrounded as it was by 6 fired cartridge casings. 7 8 v. However, the distribution of the other fired cartridge casings that would have 9 been ejected from the gun as each round was fired and other exhibits found at the 10 scene gives rise to other, perhaps obvious, conclusions 11 12 vi. The gunman plainly moved around the area outside the houses at 89 Miss Daisy 13 Lane as he fired at Shaquille, and 14 15 vii. Equally plainly, Shaquille must have effectively been pursued by his assailant as 16 he tried in vain to escape this deadly attack 17 18 viii. Given that the final shots must have been fired next to where Shaquille’s body 19 was found, a number of others must have been fired before that. 20 21 ix. It seems plain that the attack began with the gunman out at the back of the 22 makeshift garage where 4 casings were found on top of the blue crate (markers 23 28, 29, 30, Photos 44-45, Tab 6) and another in front of it (marker 27, Photo 41) 24 25 x. A further casing, at Marker 26 (Photo 39, Tab 6), was found just outside the rear 26 entrance to the garage. The trajectory line leads from there to the tented structure 27 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 11 of 97 xi. But, if Shaquille was on that left or nearside of the dust covered car inside the 1 garage when that shot was fired at him, there clearly came a time when he was 2 on the other side of that vehicle as well – and that is known for two reasons: 3 4 a) First, a shot was fired across the roof of that car, causing a groove in the 5 roof, and embedded itself in the wall of the house to its right, the house 6 with the numbers 89 on its wall. This is one of the trajectory paths plotted 7 with strings and rods seen in the scene photos at Tab 6 Photos 70-72; 8 9 b) But, that is where Shaquille was by that stage – not only is that obvious 10 because of the direction in which the gunman fired, but Shaquille also 11 lost one of his Nike slide on shoes there (marker 25, Tab 6 Photo 37-8). 12 13 xii. From there, Shaquille managed to get as far as the middle of the yard before the 14 gunman shot him to the ground 15 16 xiii. He lost his other shoe there, close to where his body was found (marker 33, Tab 17 6 Photo 51) 18 19 xiv. And then, as already said, he must in all probability have received the first of two 20 gunshot wounds that would likely have caused his immediate collapse, and/or 21 death – those two most serious wounds described by Dr Rouse tell their own 22 story; first, having passed through the left lung and aorta, Wound 2 struck 23 Shaquille’s spine and would have resulted in the loss of the use of his legs and 24 his immobilisation and collapse. He would not have moved from where he was 25 when he received that injury. Secondly, as to Wound 1, the head wound to the 26 back of the head, this was angled downwards, suggesting, in Dr Rouse’s expert 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 12 of 97 opinion, that Shaquille was collapsing at the time or had already collapsed. From 1 this, Dr Rouse states it might be inferred to represent a coup de grace. 2 3

¶ [34] The Crown would suggest that there is no sensible interpretation of this evidence other than to 4 conclude that Shaquille, unarmed and defenceless, was executed by his assailant. Having been 5 chased around this relatively small area, he was gunned down in the middle of the yard and, as he 6 fell or having fallen, he was finished off with a bullet to the back of his head.” 7 8 9 THE OFFENCE OF POSSESSION OF AN UNLICENCED FIREARM 10 11

¶ [35] What is also common ground between the prosecution and defence is that the prosecution’s case 12 as presented does not allow room for different verdicts in respect of each count of the indictment. 13 If this Court finds that the defendant is guilty of the offence of murder the first count on the 14 indictment, it must follow that he is also guilty of the second count of unlawful possession of a 15 firearm. Similarly, if the defendant is not guilty of murder he must also be not guilty of possession 16 of an unlicenced firearm. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 13 of 97 THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION 1 2

¶ [36] The Crown’s case is that Roger Davard Bush had the motive, the means and the opportunity to 3 murder the deceased, his son, and that the evidence proves beyond any doubt that he did so. 4 5

¶ [37] Although there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove motive, the prosecution’s case is 6 that there is clear and unequivocal evidence of the defendant’s sexual jealousy of the deceased 7 and also of what the main prosecution witness, NE related was the defendant’s irrational and 8 baseless preoccupation with his belief that Shaquille and not himself was his daughter Bella’s 9 biological father. 10 11

¶ [38] The prosecution case is that the defendant had the means to commit this murder. 12 13

¶ [39] The prosecution allege that the defendant had access to a firearm or firearms and that guns featured 14 in life at Miss Daisy Lane. 15 16

¶ [40] The prosecution also allege that the defendant had the opportunity to commit these crimes on the 17 12th of November 2019, that he, on the prosecution’s evidence, was at Miss Daisy Lane at the time 18 of the shooting and that it has not been argued during the course of the trial that he was not. 19 20 THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AT TRIAL 21 22

¶ [41] Section 34(1) of the Evidence Act (2019 Revision) allows for Proof by formal admission and 23 states: 24 “Subject to this section, any fact of which oral evidence may be given in any 25 criminal proceedings may be admitted for the purpose of those proceedings by or 26 on behalf of the prosecutor or defendant, and the admission by any party of such 27 fact under this section is, as against that party, conclusive evidence in those 28 proceedings of the fact so admitted. 29 30 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 14 of 97

¶ [42] Pursuant to s.34(1) of the Evidence Act a document entitled “Agreed Facts VI” was introduced 1 into evidence by the prosecution as part of the prosecution’s case. 2 3

¶ [43] These agreed facts are lengthy. However, it is necessary to set them out in their entirety here. 4 5 THE AGREED FACTS 6

¶ [44] These are: 7

¶ [1] Exhibits 8 The provenance, production, continuity and admissibility of all exhibits 9 produced by witnesses whose written statements have been served as 10 evidence by the Prosecution are admitted. 11 12

¶ [2] Maps, plans and photographs 13 The maps, plans and photographs in the Trial Bundle are agreed. 14 15

¶ [3] Telephone and movement schedules 16 The schedules, JD/IA/1b – JD/IA/17, inclusive, produced by Joanne 17 Delaney, Intelligence Analyst employed by [the Royal Cayman Islands 18 Police Service] (RCIPS), are agreed and accurately represent the facts and 19 matters stated therein. [this is intended to cover all data production from 20 FLOW and Digicel, work done by others inc Boxwell st 135 and ANPR from 21 Webb st 149-151] 22 23 Attribution of users telephone numbers, all with Cayman Islands area codes 24 (+1345) are agreed as follows: 25 (a) Roger Davard Bush (the Defendant): 9220595 26 (b) [NE]: 9287439 27 (c) [NE]/Bella Bush: 9285666 28 (d) Shaquille Demario Bush: 9170451 29 (e) [COE]: 3215858 30 (f) Marlene Ebanks: 9256173 31 (g) Wayne McLean: 9391041 32 (h) Moises Bush: 9174895 33 (i) Sherlene Mothen: 9395933 34 (j) Phoenix Health Services Ltd: 9438150 35 36

¶ [4] Names, DOBs 37 The following dates of birth are agreed: 38 (a) Roger Davard Bush (the Defendant), dob 4th January 1975 39 (b) [NE], dob 2nd December 1988 40 (c) Shaquille Demario Bush, dob 24th February 1995 41 (d) Bella Bush, dob 19th October 2012 42 (e) Destiny Bush, dob17th January 2001 43 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 15 of 97 (f) Britney Bush, dob 21st January 2003 1 (g) [COE], dob 7th November 1985 2

¶ [5] Arrest 08.11.19 [circumstances of arrest charge and plea] 3 At 0308hrs on 8th November 2019, the Defendant was arrested at 5, 4 Carnegie Way on suspicion of an alleged domestic assault on NE on 14th 5 October 2019 He was bailed on that matter. 6 He was subsequently charged and, on 2 June 2021, pleaded guilty to an 7 offence of common assault. He awaits sentence. 8 9 10

¶ [6] CCTV 11 (a) In the course of the investigation, RCIPS obtained CCTV material 12 (moving footage) from a number of different sources, in particular from 13 (i) Cash Wiz Cayman, business premises at 144, North Church St, 14 George Town, from three requested cameras (two covering the 15 parking lot and the third from behind the front counter facing 16 the main entrance) covering the period on 12th November 2019 17 from 1500hrs (3pm) to 1700hrs (5pm). [Durrant st 126, 248, 18 Ex DD/1] 19 The Cash Wiz CCTV footage [Ex DD/1] is 8mins 59secs fast or 20 ahead of ‘real time’. 21 (ii) Government roadside cameras monitored by the National 22 CCTV system. 23 Footage from selected Government cameras was sought and 24 obtained on 13th November 2019 [unused #18] covering the 25 period on 12th November 2019 between 1630 hrs (4.30pm) and 26 1800hrs (6.30pm) and a more comprehensive request was made 27 and complied with on 24th December 2019 providing CCTV 28 footage from relevant cameras for the period on 12th November 29 2019 between about 1630hrs (4.30pm) and 1940hrs (7.40pm) 30 [Morgan st 221, Ex AM1A, unused #79] 31 The times shown on the Government cameras closely 32 approximate to, but will not completely synchronise with, ‘real 33 time’. 34 35 (b) Thereafter, DC Russell These of RCIPS compiled a series of 36 storyboards using still photograph frames taken from the CCTV footage 37 and relating to the events at Cash Wiz and the movements of three 38 different motor vehicles, namely:- 39 • A Black Honda Accord, licence plate no. 190-006 40 • A gray Kia Sorento, licence plate no. 161-888 41 • A beige (visually gold coloured) Toyota Camry, licence 42 plate no.146-647 43 • 44 DC These finally edited these into a single storyboard as his exhibit 45 RT/CCTV/1 [These st 246, Ex 386 – 516) 46 47 (c) From the CCTV material (moving footage), and having been assisted 48 by another or other specialist police officers [Reed st 138] on 17th 49 September 2021 DC These [These st 257] created two composite, 50 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 16 of 97 edited videos using a video editing programme, Open Shot Video 1 Editor, as 2 o RT/CASHWIZ/COMP 3 o RT/GOVT/COMP 4 (d) Finally, on 30th May 2022, DC These placed 4 seconds long inserts 5 before each video clip describing the respective video clip’s time, 6 duration, camera name and location and the associated storyboard 7 Photo Still from his exhibit RT/CCTV/1. He produces the video with 8 inserts as RT/GOVT/COMP2. 9 [These st 257] 10 11

¶ [7] Cash Wiz records [Jordae Scott st 125] 12 Cash Wiz sold only one cell phone on 12th November 2019. 13 That single sale was of a Microsoft RM-1041 model that Cash Wiz had 14 previously purchased from Consuelo Cheryll-Jane Miller for $35 on 30th 15 August 2019. 16 The Cash Wiz sale receipt, JS/1 (x529) describes that cell phone as having 17 been sold on 12th November 2019 at 4.29pm for $90 to a person giving the 18 name ‘David Parchment’ 19 20

¶ [8] 911 call 21 A 911 call (Ref: 2019-030032) was made to the Department of Public Safety 22 Communications, by a male giving his name as ‘Michael Bush’ reporting 23 his cousin, Shaquille Bush, as having been shot at 89, Miss Daisy Lane, 24 Logwoods. 25 It is recorded on RCIPS Computer Aided Despatch system as having been 26 made at 17:27:29 [JD/IA/9b, Call 124] 27 28

¶ [9] Police and Emergency Services 29 The 911 call is recorded on the RCIPS CAD system as having been received 30 at 17:27:29hrs (Trial Bundle Tab 3 JD/IA/9b Entry 124). 31 A Firearms Response Unit vehicle manned by APS Peter Muragh and PC 32 Craig Hunter was the first to attend the crime scene at Miss Daisy Lane. 33 Those two officers observed the motionless body of Shaquille Bush lying on 34 the ground and what appeared to be a number of spent 9mm cartridge 35 casings close to the body. 36 Other police officers were rapidly on the scene. PC Georgina White and PC 37 Bush arrived at approximately 1733hrs, by which time two uniform officers 38 from West Bay Police Station had already joined APS Muragh and PC 39 Hunter. 40 Within 5-10 minutes of her arrival, PC White had placed a police cordon 41 around the area and had begun a crime scene log recording all those who 42 entered and left the crime scene. A number of other RCIPS officers attended 43 in due course.’ 44 45

¶ [10] Pathology 46 (i) On 18th November 2019, a post mortem examination of the body of 47 Shaquille Demario Bush, dob 24th February 1995, was carried out 48 by Dr Michael Steckbauer, his findings being described in his 49 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 17 of 97 Autopsy report, dated 20th November 2019, at x355-362, and body 1 maps, date stamped ‘11/18/2019’ at x363-369. 2 (ii) Dr Steckbauer’s findings were subsequently reviewed by Dr David 3 A Rouse [st Rouse 183, 197]. 4 5

¶ [11] Toxicology 6 Specimens collected by Dr Steckbauer during his post-mortem examination 7 of the body of Shaquille Bush were the subject of a toxicological analysis by 8 or under the supervision of Alan Glasgow, a forensic scientist [st 87 Alan 9 Glasgow]. Two positive findings were made: 10 (i) Alcohol – an ethanol concentration of 12mg per 100ml of blood was 11 detected. This concentration is low and is not considered 12 forensically significant ( reference, the legal limit for driving in the 13 Cayman Islands is 100mg per 100ml). 14 (ii) The urine sample taken had a positive 9-Carboxy-THC result at a 15 concentration of greater than 1000ng/ml. This presence of 9- 16 Carboxy-THC in Shaquille Bush’s urine shows that he had 17 consumed cannabis on an occasion or occasions during a period of 18 up to approximately 4 weeks and, since the analysis is in urine, no 19 interpretation is possible of potential impairment at the time of his 20 death. 21 22

¶ [12] Ballistics 23 The following items were submitted to Maurice L Cooper, an expert firearm 24 examiner, for examination and analysis [st 91, 93, 213 Cooper]. 25 (i) 15 x 9mm Luger cartridge cases (LR2, 4-9, 11-12, 17-22) 26 recovered from the scene in Miss Daisy Lane by SOCO Lewis 27 Reid on the night of 12th November 2019. 28 These were physically examined and microscopically compared. 29 Mr Cooper found they each had sufficient Individual 30 Characteristics to determine that they were all fired in the same 31 firearm. 32 (ii) 3 x fired copper jacketed bullets typical of 9mm, LR3 (which was 33 badly damaged), LR 24 and LR30 were also recovered from the 34 scene by SOCO Reid on the night of 12th November 2019 save in 35 the case of LR30 which he recovered the following morning. 36 (iii) Three further fired copper jacketed bullets, being LR40 and 37 LR42 (both typical of 9mm) plus LR41 which comprised two 38 fragments typical of bullet fragments were taken from Shaquille 39 Bush’s body during the post mortem examination on 18th 40 November 2019. 41 In relation to these five fired bullets (LR3, 24, 30, 40 and 42) and 42 the fragments comprising LR41, Mr Cooper’s conclusions are 43 these: 44 • LR24, 30, 40 and 42 had sufficient Individual 45 Characteristics to determine that they were fired from the 46 same firearm 47 • LR3 was badly damaged and had insufficient Individual 48 Characteristics to determine that it was fired from the 49 same firearm but similar Class Characteristics indicate 50 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 18 of 97 that it could have been fired from the same firearm. The 1 damage to the bullet could have prevented an 2 identification. 3 • LR41, the two fragments, was submitted subsequently 4 (when LR40 was resubmitted for comparison purposes). 5 LR40 and the copper bullet jacket fragment in LR41 had 6 similar rifling characteristics. Similar Class 7 Characteristics and some Individual Characteristics 8 indicate they could have been fired from the same 9 firearm. However, insufficient Individual Characteristics 10 were found definitively to say that they were fired from 11 the same firearm. The damage to the bullet jacket in 12 LR41 could have prevented an identification. 13 All of the ammunition components, cartridge cases and 14 bullets submitted to Mr Cooper are consistent with 9mm 15 ammunition components. 16 There is nothing to indicate that more than one firearm was 17 used in this case. 18 19

¶ [13] GSR 20 During the post mortem examination of Shaquille Bush a gunshot residue 21 (GSR) collection kit (LR 37) was used by SOCO Lewis Reid to collect 22 potential gunshot residue from the deceased’s hands. 23 The kit was submitted to the RJ Lee Group Laboratory where it was 24 subjected to expert scientific analysis using manual microscopy and then an 25 automated scanning electron microscope. [Helsel st 207, x381-3] 26 Where the presence of lead (Pb), barium (Ba) and antimony (Sb) is detected 27 in a particle, it is flagged as potential GSR and will be confirmed as such 28 when the elements condense into a single particle, exhibiting the proper 29 morphology (form or shape) and chemistry. 30 Any particle with these features and a combination of two of the three 31 elements (Pb/Sb and Pb/Ba or Sb/Ba) is classified as a two component 32 particle (and a particle with one of the three that exhibits proper 33 morphology and chemistry as a one component particle) 34 Expert analysis of the GSR collection kit relating to Shaquille Bush revealed 35 the detection of the following confirmed particles in relation to his hands: 36 Right hand back - 1 x two component particle 37 Right hand palm - no particles characteristic of GSR or two 38 component particles 39 Left hand back - 7 x two component particles 40 Left hand palm - greater than or equal to 5 x two component 41 particles 42 GSR can be deposited by circumstances such as discharging a firearm, 43 being in the proximity of a discharging firearm or coming into contact with 44 a surface or object that has GSR on it. 45 Two component and one component particles are found in GSR but may also 46 originate from other sources. 47 The absence of GSR does not eliminate the possibility that the subject 48 handled or discharged a firearm. 49 50 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 19 of 97

¶ [14] DVDL records 1 (a) Wayne Eron McLean, of 131 Watler’s Road, George Town was 2 registered as the current owner of a silver Honda Accord motor car, 3 registration plate 182-138, with effect from 9th February 2019 and paid 4 the CI$25 change of owner fee on 24th October 2019 [st 254 Cacho, 5 ELEC 7]. 6 (b) At all material times in November 2019, Marlene Rose Ebanks, the 7 mother of NE, was the registered owner of a grey Kia Sorento motor 8 car, registration plate 161-888 [x623] 9 10

¶ [15] Immigration records 11 Records contained in the Cayman Islands’ Immigration Support System 12 Database include details of all arrivals departures from and arrivals into 13 the Islands [x635-6]. 14 The Travel History relating to NE, dob 2nd December 1988 includes the 15 following departures (on British Airways flight BA252, the flight from 16 Grand Cayman to London Heathrow, via Nassau) and arrivals (on British 17 Airways flight BA253, the corresponding flight from London Heathrow to 18 Grand Cayman, via Nassau) 19 Departure Arrival 20 06.03.12 [on BA 2252] 20.11.12 21 12.01.13 24.08.15 22 04.09.15 22.08.16 23 04.09.16 10.07.17 24 On 16.12.19 she left Grand Cayman for London Heathrow, returning from 25 there to Grand Cayman on 09.01.20. 26 27 28

¶ [16] Defendant at Prisoners’ Detention Center (13th – 17th November 2019) 29 (a) Having been arrested at 1505hrs, the custody record refers to the 30 Defendant being ‘in what appeared to be good physical condition’ at 31 the time of the hand over at 1900hrs that day. 32 (b) Audio video interviews under caution of the Defendant were conducted 33 by DS Andrew Graham [st 112-3] and DC Richard Sherwin [st 114, 34 176] on three occasions whilst he was in custody at this time, the discs 35 being exhibited as by the former as Ex AG/RB1a, AG/RB2 and AG/RB3 36 respectively. Transcripts of each interview were subsequently produced 37 as exhibits by DC Sillitoe, she having listened to the content and proof 38 read transcripts provided by administrative staff. 39 40

¶ [17] ABE interviews 41 (i) NE 42 NE was interviewed on tape as a significant witness on:- 43 (a) 11th September 2020 by Acting Chief Inspector Joseph 44 Wright and PS Ava-Marie Parkinson, between 1338hrs 45 and 1445hrs. 46 A transcript was produced [x31-50] from which NE’s 47 witness statement, dated 8th October 2020 [st 1-17], was 48 prepared and signed 49 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 20 of 97 (b) 19th January 2021 by Acting Chief Inspector Joseph 1 Wright and DC Russell These, between 1040hrs and 2 1320hrs. 3 A transcript was produced [x51-190] from which NE’s 4 witness statement, dated 11th May 2021 [st 18-30] was 5 prepared and signed. 6 7 (ii) COE 8 (iii) COEwas interviewed as a significant witness on:- 9 (a) 17th September 2020 by Acting Chief Inspector Joseph 10 Wright and PS Ava-Marie Parkinson, between 1432hrs and 11 1615hrs. 12 A transcript was produced [x191-215] from which COE’s 13 witness statement, dated 13th October 2020 [st 32-40] was 14 prepared and signed 15 (b) 9th February 2021 by DC Samantha Sillitoe and DC Russell 16 These, between 1410hrs and 1547hrs. 17 A transcript was produced [x216-302] from which COE’s 18 witness statement, dated 13th August 2021 [st 41-48] was 19 prepared and signed. 20 21 22

¶ [18] Identification of CL6 by NE 23 On Wednesday 27 January 2021 Inspector Lavine showed NE a photo 24 spread containing 12 photos. She was asked to point out the male that she 25 said verbally threatened her whilst at the RCIPS Detention Centre on 17 26 November 2019. NE positively identified CL”. 27 28 29 READ INTO EVIDENCE 30

¶ [45] In addition to the Agreed Facts the evidence of a number of witnesses was read into evidence 31 pursuant to s 33(4) of the Evidence Act. The salient aspects of the evidence of those 32 witnesses are as follows. 33 34 FITZROY SMITH 35 36

¶ [46] He was a tenant of Mike Bush, one of the owners of premises at MDL. At the time of the 37 murder, he had been living at the premises for approximately 5 months. He knew the 38 deceased because he would usually see him come around the yard from time to time. He 39 6 On application by the Crown, the Court ordered that there be no reporting of this officer’s name, the officer is the subject in another yet untried matter. JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 21 of 97 related that he knew Mike Bush, Moises Bush and Shaquille Bush only since he lived at 1 MDL. Fitzroy Smith lived there with his spouse. He related that on the 12/11/2019 he 2 arrived home from work at approx. 4:30 pm. He went outside after about 20 minutes to get 3 some cool breeze as inside the apt was hot. Suddenly he heard the voice of the deceased 4 saying “all Jamaicans should leave the yard in 10 minutes”. He saw the deceased and Mike 5 Bush at that time. Mike Bush asked the deceased why his tenants should leave and deceased 6 sated he don’t care about any tenants and that “all Jamaicans should left from ya”. Smith 7 related that he went back inside his room and spoke to his spouse. They left the room and 8 immediately vacated the premises leaving everything behind. 9 10

¶ [47] He described that they walked from MDL unto hell road and as they did so he heard “multiple 11 loud explosions sounding like gunshots at the premises.” He stated that just as he and his 12 spouse exited MDL he saw Moises Bush entering MDL. He was in the company of his 13 girlfriend. He related that he and his spouse walked out in the direction of WBPS and 14 stopped at a shop where his brother worked. 15 16

¶ [48] His evidence was that “after the incident I heard people saying that Shaq died. I do not know 17 what happened because I left before the incident. To the best of my knowledge, the shots 18 were fired around the period of 5 pm when I heard them. I am not sure how many shots were 19 fired but I know that I heard multiple explosions.” 20 21

¶ [49] He was not aware of Shaquille and anyone of his family members in any dispute. He did 22 not see anyone else around the yard when he left MDL that evening. He left Mike Bush and 23 Shaquille Bush in the yard and could say that Moises and girlfriend entered the lane in the 24 gold colour sedan type Camry car. 25 26 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 22 of 97

¶ [50] Fitzroy Smith was not available for cross examination by the defence. This is a matter 1 that the Court must consider as it assesses this evidence. Fitzroy Smith’s evidence is 2 part of the prosecution’s evidence to establish the time at which the deceased was shot. 3 The time stamp from CCTV still as Moises Bush entered the yard at MDL that evening 4 was 5:18 pm. 5 6 YADELA RAMIREZ CISNERO 7 8

¶ [51] This witness is a nurse who at the relevant time lived in an area to the back of the premises 9 at MDL. She described that on the 12th of November 2019 she let work and went to pick up 10 her sister before heading home. She received a telephone call from her boss during her drive 11 home and told him she would call him back as she was driving. She arrived at home at 5:00 12 pm. She described that when she arrived home “my sister and I got out of the car when I 13 heard loud male voices as if people were quarrelling and cursing coming from the premises 14 behind my house.” This was not unusual. There was a board fence dividing her house from 15 these premises. Ms. Cisnero stated that she was outside her house speaking to her boss from 16 about 5:08 pm for about 10 -15 mins. During the call she sheard 4-5 loud explosions which 17 sounded like gunshots coming from the back of her house where she had heard the 18 quarrelling earlier. A few seconds later she heard another two explosions coming from the 19 same direction. She ran into her house and she believes she continued her conversation for 20 another 5 minutes. Ms. Cisneros turned over a copy of a screen shot of her phone on the 21 relevant date showing that her call to her boss came in at 5:08 pm and ended 20 mins and 42 22 seconds later. 23 24

¶ [52] The prosecution’s case is that this further establishes the time of the shooting of the 25 deceased, between 5:18 and 5:23 according to the estimate from Ms. Cisneros. 26 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 23 of 97 TEDDY L ROBINSON 1 2

¶ [53] This witness lived close to MDL. He stated that he was usually quite specific about his 3 timings and routines. He stated that on the 12th Nov 2019, he was at home when at about 4 5:20 pm he went into his kitchen. As he stood in the kitchen area of his home, he heard a 5 series of explosions. He estimated that there were 5 separate explosions. A few seconds 6 later he heard 3 more explosions. He left his home at 17:30. When he did so, he could see 7 police cars coming in the opposite direction. 8 9

¶ [54] The prosecution’s case is that this further his evidence confirms the timeline of the 10 shooting of the deceased. 11 12 JASON WEEKS 13 14

¶ [55] Mr. Weeks is communications supervisor at the Department of Public Safety 15 Communications. He received a request from an officer in the case for any 911 phone calls 16 or audio transmissions on the date of the murder. Retrieved the audio clip from of 911 phone 17 calls and radio transmission between the hours of from 5:25 pm and 9:30pm on the 12th 18 October 2019. The audio clip transferred unto 2 compact discs, the radio 911/phone calls 19 and audio transmission were tendered into evidence and the transcript read to the court. 20 21

¶ [56] The transcript shows that the 911 call was first received at approximately 5:27 from 22 someone who identified himself as Michael Bush giving the location as Miss Daisy Land 23 and the name of the person shot as Shaquille Bush 24 25 26 27 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 24 of 97 KYSTAL ARCH 1

¶ [57] This witness is a paramedic who first saw body of the deceased at the scene, unresponsive 2 not breathing and pulseless at 5:31 pm. Her evidence was that the deceased was attached to 3 a Cardiac Monitor to ascertain if a pulse was present or if any cardiac electrical activity was 4 present. 5

¶ [58] EMS Concluded that the deceased injuries were not compatible with life and that the 6 patient was dead. 7 8 PC JEROME GARLAND 9 10

¶ [59] PC Garland was an authorized firearms officer at scene. His evidence was that he first heard 11 a radio transmission of the shooting incident at MDL at about 5:30 pm on 12th November 12

¶ [2019] He immediately engaged emergency lights and made his way to the location. On 13 arrival he saw the body of SB lying on the ground in a pool of blood. He observed what 14 appeared to be a number of 9mm spent casings on the ground in close proximity to the body. 15 A search of the premises at MDL was conducted for possible suspects but none were located. 16 He noted the positions of other spent casings on the ground in a garage and also at the rear 17 of the garage. 18 19

¶ [60] His evidence was that a cordon was established by unarmed officers who attended at 20 the location soon after he arrived at the premises. 21 22 DI DAVE MORRISON 23 24

¶ [61] DI Morrison dispatched SOCO Reid to scene. Gave orders for various matters to be attended 25 to at the scene. DI Morrison observed what appeared to be ganja clutched in the right 26 hand of the deceased as his body lay on the ground. d 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 25 of 97 DC LEXINE WELCOME 1 2

¶ [62] DC Welcome detailed to locate Roger Bush by DI Morrison to inform him of death of his 3 son on the 12th of November. Her efforts were unsuccessful. On the 13th of November she 4 first noted the presence of a black Honda registration no 190-006 at the premises parked 5 approx. 50m from house and the area where the deceased’s body was found. 6 7

¶ [63] The black Honda was Parked within the police cordon which had been established on 8 the evening of 12th of November. She Noted that his was a vehicle said to be associated 9 with the defendant. 10 11 DR JHOTI 12 13

¶ [64] Dr. Jhoti is a pathologist attached to the Cayman Islands Health Services Authority (HSA). 14 He attended the scene and declared the death of SB at 9:30 pm on 12th November. He 15 observed what appeared to be gunshot wounds on body. 16 17 DC SHELDON REYNOLDS 18 19

¶ [65] DC Reynolds is attached to the Crime Task Force who assisted in investigation. His 20 evidence was that he on 13 November at approx. 1:19 pm he was at MDL when he witnessed 21 the arrival of the def. He observed the defendant who was drinking from a rum bottle flask 22 size and smoking. 23

¶ [66] This witness’ further evidence at trial was to the effect that he spoke to the witness 24 Teddy Robinson on 13 November 2019. Terry Robinson confirmed to him that when 25 he heard the shots and drove off in his vehicle that two Jamaicans had jumped into the 26 back of his car. 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 26 of 97 ISHMAEL LESLIE 1 2

¶ [67] Officer Leslie attended at MDL on the 13 November 2019. At that he was informed that the 3 defendant was a person of interest in the investigation. 4 5

¶ [68] This officer assisted DS Anderson to place the defendant under arrest. At the time the 6 defendant was sitting with a group of men. This witness accompanied Inspector 7 Anderson to transport the defendant to the Cayman Islands Detention Centre. He 8 witnessed the Defendant kick out a window of the police car during the journey to the 9 Detention Centre. 10 11 VIVA VOCE EVIDENCE 12 13

¶ [69] Apart from this evidence the prosecution also called Witnesses to give evidence in court. 14 15 EVIDENCE OF NE 16 17

¶ [70] NE gave her evidence by video link following on an application by the Crown. She testified 18 that her relationship with the defendant began in 2005 when she was 16 and ended in May 19

¶ [2020] The deceased was one of the defendant’s children from a previous relationship. “Shaq 20 when I first knew him he was around 12 or 13 I got on pretty well with him.” 21 22

¶ [71] She related that when she found out she was pregnant with their child Bella who was born 23 in October she and the defendant moved to reside in England where they remained together 24 from 2012 to 2017. The defendant’s other two children Destiny and Betthany went to live 25 with them there in 2013. 26 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 27 of 97

¶ [72] NE came back to Cayman on 10th July 2017. NE described she the defendant and the 1 children returned to Cayman on the same flight and that she went to MDL with the children. 2 The defendant had gone on ahead of them. When they arrived she described a confrontation 3 bet the defendant and Shaquille. She related that she witnessed Shaquille fighting with the 4 Defendant and that when Shaquille saw her he went in the bushes and took out sawed off 5 shot gun and put it in her face. She stated that she believed that the argument was pertaining 6 to finances. 7 8

¶ [73] She stated that although the defendant had her and his daughters go to Police headquarters 9 to make statements pertaining to the incident, nothing came of that incident because as far 10 as she was aware, the defendant “went back and took back the statements.” 11 12

¶ [74] NE stated: “After that incident, the relationship between Shaq and his father, it looked as if 13 that issue in 2017 [had] subsided.” 14 15

¶ [75] She described that the two could get along “very good at times” and then could have really 16 bad fallings out. “When good it was great but when it was bad it was horrid.” 17 18

¶ [76] NE related to the court that there was an incident between herself and the defendant in 19 October 2019, just about a month before the shooting of Shaquille Bush in which the police 20 became involved7. The defendant admits that he assaulted her on the 14th of October 2019. 21 22

¶ [77] She related that after the def had assaulted her “he told me I must go and tell my man what 23 he did and let him come and defend me.” NE says that she did not know what or who he was 24 referring to. Following that incident NE got a restraining order against the defendant. 25 26 7 Details of the outcome of this incident are part of the Agreed Facts in this case at paragraph 5. JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 28 of 97

¶ [78] NE reconciled with the defendant sometime in early November 2019. She related at during 1 the time that they were separated she heard rumours, “something circulating about the 2 paternity of Bella and hearing that Bella looks too much like Shaq”. She said the rumours 3 going around were that Bella was for Shaq instead of the Defedant. She stated that there was 4 no truth to these rumours and she could not say where they were coming from. 5 6

¶ [79] On the 11th of November 2019, the day before Shaquille Bush was murdered, NE saw the 7 defendant at Carnegie Way in Northward. She went out with him that night and they spent 8 the night together. She related that “At that stage I was so scared to be with him but he would 9 not leave me alone.” 10 11

¶ [80] NE related that they went out Everglo Bar in Bodden Town in the defendant’s black Honda 12 motor vehicle. 13 14

¶ [81] As they drove in she heard someone whistling and the def stopped the vehicle to see who it 15 was. It was Shaquille Bush. She said further: 16 17 “He spoke to us. He spoke to Roger. Having spoken to Roger, me and Roger, 18 then I tried to speak to Shaq but Roger just drove off. I Wanted to speak to 19 him to tell him about rumours, talk to him about rumours because I noticed 20 Roger was very uneasy about the rumours going around. By speaking to 21 Shaq I hoped that there be bring some sort of clarity to Roger that Shaq 22 could never be Bella’s Dad because Roger was.” 23

¶ [82] She related that after that encounter with Shaquille Bush, the defendant carried her to a 24 secluded beach in Bodden Town, got out of car, told her to get out and asked her for her 25 phone. He asked her for Shaquille Bush’s number and he then called him. She said further: 26 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 29 of 97 “He said that I must come close to him because he was holding the phone 1 and I must ask Shaq what he think about the rumours about Bella.” 2 3

¶ [83] She continued 4 “Shaq answered the call saying “Who the f is this?” I replied and said this 5 is NE. I did not say why I was calling and I said have you heard the rumours 6 about Bella. I not spell it out. He said he doesn’t care about that and hang 7 up the phone. I did not say what the rumours were. He just swore and hang 8 up. He said he did not care.” 9 10

¶ [84] NE related that when they went home that evening the defendant was “sobbing 11 uncontrollably on my chest” and that she tried to reassure him again that Shaquille Bush 12 being Bella’s Dad was not in issue. 13 14

¶ [85] On the morning of the 12th of November 2019, which was the morning of Shaquille Bush’s 15 murder, NE and the defendant went to Foster’s airport and picked up breakfast. They went 16 to the airport park to eat it. She said the defendant “was upset like the night before” and the 17 subject of Bella’s paternity was raised again that morning. The defendant asked her to look 18 up DNA centers in Cayman. As a result she called Phoenix Health Services in the presence 19 of the defendant. She said she called them on speaker on her phone but when a Jamaican 20 national answered the phone the defendant said “… it is Jamaican national and they could 21 take bribe” from her not to tell the truth of the paternity test. Nothing came of that call. 22 23

¶ [86] NE related that she spent the rest of the morning “with Roger.” She said the defendant 24 carried her to get her hair done and he got his done as well. She went back to Northward to 25 get some clothing and then the defendant received some phone calls so they went to MDL 26 in West Bay. She saw and spoke to ‘COE’ there. NE said COE had an issue with her phone 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 30 of 97 and the defendant said he would purchase a phone for COE. They picked up Bella after 1 school and eventually went to Cash Wiz to purchase a phone. NE confirmed with the aid of 2 photographs that, at this point, she, NE, was wearing a pair of pink jeans pants and a black 3 and white top. The top had white piping around the collar, but most of it was black. The 4 defendant was wearing khaki shorts and a black and white Bob Marley round-necked t-shirt. 5 6

¶ [87] After the phone was purchased NE and Bella got into the Kia and the Defendant was in the 7 black Honda. They were going to MDL. Along the way she made 3 stops. The first was to 8 Chicken! Chicken! The second stop was at Burger King and the third at Pop-A-Top in West 9 bay. Her evidence is that “At this stage I was still heading to MDL, that was still the plan.” 10 11

¶ [88] NE described leaving Pop-A-Top and, having gone into the roundabout in the area of Rev 12 Blackman Road and Powell Smith Drive, she turned back to where she had just driven from 13 “because I received a phone call from Roger”. It was 5:01:55. 14 15

¶ [89] She stated that the defendant said during the call “…I must not come down there, I must go 16 by my cousin yard for a while. He did not say why.” NE continued “I understood he was 17 saying I should go to Candice. At the time she lived at Mt. Pleasant. I did what he said.” 18 19

¶ [90] She related getting to COE’s address in Mt Pleasant. She said she did not stay there for very 20 long. NE said: 21 22 “I left because Roger phoned me back. When he called me back, he wanted 23 me to go to Double O Road [‘OO Road’].” 24 “When he rang me, because of how his tone of voice was I know he was 25 angry or agitated so I left right away because I did not know what the issue 26 was.” 27 28

¶ [91] NE continued: 29 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 31 of 97 “When he summoned me he said where he want me to collect him and ‘where 1 I am now’ ‘are you coming to get me’, he mentioned something about beach 2 that if I wanted to go to carry the baby to the beach. This was all the same 3 phone call when he was telling me to come and pick him up. [On] the call 4 he was very aggressive with me.” 5 6

¶ [92] NE was familiar with OO Road and had met the defendant there on occasions before this. 7 She related that when she arrived there: 8 “I drove in and turned around. Having turned around I was a couple feet 9 from Hell Road, right up to Hell Road. I went in and turned around the car 10 because I did not see Roger when driving down OO Road. So I turned 11 around vehicle.” 12 13

¶ [93] NE continued: 14 “As I saw him approach OO Drive I drove down to meet him. I saw him 15 coming from the bushes from across the road. MDL Road is a made up 16 Road. He was coming out of the bushes.” 17 18 “At the time he was wearing the same clothes he had on prior that day but 19 the Bob Marley shirt was wrapped around his head, he had a black marina 20 on top part and same kind of khaki grey shorts.” 21 22 “When I first saw him he was very frantic and aggressive and frantic. He 23 was not calm. Far from calm. He said you want to carry the baby to the 24 beach lets go to the fucking beach. Bella was in the back seat and Roger in 25 the front. The Kia is a left-hand drive. He got in right side at the front.” 26 27 “I said [he was] frantic. He was very sweaty. This did not seem normal to 28 me. What was not normal I can’t say … ” 29 30

¶ [94] NE said that they did not go to the beach as the defendant had told her to go towards the 31 Turtle Farm Road. However they did not reach the Turtle Farm as the defendant “made me 32 turn off to a dirt road on the left.” 33 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 32 of 97 1

¶ [95] She said she drove into the road and when she stopped the car, the defendant: 2 3 “…got out and he ran to the iron shore and took off all of his clothing and 4 threw it in the water. He threw it in the ocean. He did not explain why he 5 was doing it. I could not speak to him. He ran all the way out there to the 6 iron shore. I was in the car with the baby at that time.” 7 8 “….he did not explain he just said I must not ask him any questions. I asked 9 him why did just do what he did for … I pressed him as to why. He said 10 “don’t ask me any questions”. He say “let’s go to beach, you say you want 11 to go to the beach, let’s go to the he beach with the baby”.” 12 13 14

¶ [96] She said she went with the defendant and Bella to the beach in the area of Alfresco 15 [Restaurant]. The defendant got out of the car naked and put on one of NE’s trousers that 16 she had in the vehicle. 17 18

¶ [97] The defendant, NE and Bella went into the ocean. NE related that while in the ocean she 19 could hear sirens. And she asked the defendant “what happen, do you know what happen”. 20 21

¶ [98] NE said the defendant did not reply to that question and, instead, told her that they were 22 going back to her mother’s place in Northward. She related: 23 24 “That was not the plan. That is what I told him too because I was a bit 25 confused, still trying to wrap my head around all of his actions. He did not 26 say about going to my mother’s before this rather than to MDL.” 27 28 29

¶ [99] NE described that after leaving the beach, on the way to Northward she received three phone 30 calls about Shaquille Bush’s shooting. She stated that at the time she was holding the phone 31 to her ear and therefore she could not tell if the defendant could hear what was being said. 32 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 33 of 97 NE said one caller stated that it was “JE that shot Shaq.” The next call was that Jamaicans 1 had run through Logwoods and shot at Shaquille. The third call said that they heard that it 2 was the defendant that shot Shaquille. 3 4

¶ [100] NE stated that when she received the third call she did not say anything to the defendant. 5 However, she felt that he had heard the conversation. She said the defendant had had no 6 reaction until last call when the person stated they heard it was Roger that shot Shaq. She 7 described his reaction: 8 9 “He started to grab on the car door handle trying to open it up. The car … 10 was moving we were slightly moving. We were in traffic. He told me to stop 11 the car. But for me to open door I had to turn car off. I did that and he ran 12 across the road. When he got out he was running.” 13 14 15

¶ [101] She explained that after he ran off she tried to locate him for some 30 minutes but she could 16 not find him. 17 18

¶ [102] NE said she drove to her mother’s home in Northward. Sometime later that evening she 19 called COE to come to meet with her. COE did come to Northward and the two were driving 20 in the Red Bay area. It was at this point that she received a telephone call from the defendant. 21 She told him where she was and the defendant told her to meet him at Royal Bank of Canada 22 - the Red Bay location. 23 24

¶ [103] NE said the defendant then called again and said that there was “too much police on the road 25 - must meet him by Hurley’s Pharmacy.” 26 27

¶ [104] COE drove to the pharmacy. NE said that when she saw the defendant he was exiting a 28 silver Honda Accord. At this point the defendant was not wearing the same clothes she had 29 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 34 of 97 last seen him in. She saw that the defendant had what looked like a handgun, “…like a silver 1 chrome handgun.” She said she saw the handle of the gun which was in his waist. She said 2 the defendant got into COE’s vehicle and lay down on the back seat. 3 4

¶ [105] NE said further, that the defendant directed COE to go to Prospect Point. He got out of the 5 vehicle when they got there, telling NE to come out of the vehicle too and to stay by the 6 hood of COE’s vehicle where he could see her. He went into the water for a couple of 7 minutes, then rushed back to the vehicle and directed and them to drive along South Sound. 8 9

¶ [106] NE said the defendant directed COE to stop at the Chrissie Tomlinson Hospital parking lot. 10 COE parked the vehicle and then COE exited the vehicle and went to the gas station leaving 11 NE and the defendant in the car. 12 13

¶ [107] NE stated that the defendant questioned her about what she had heard on the streets 14 concerning Shaquille Bush’s death. NE then said: 15 16 “I told him that what I heard basically that Jamaicans, JE and himself.” 17 18

¶ [108] NE said: 19 “He did not take it calmly. He was kind of hysterical and crying and that is 20 all I can recall.” 21 22

¶ [109] When COE came back to the car, he directed her to drive him to her house on Mt. Pleasant 23 Road in West Bay. NE noticed: 24 “He was still on his back and he occasionally peeked, [that is] he 25 occasionally got up and look and then he went back to lying flat on his 26 back.” 27 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 35 of 97

¶ [110] When they got to COE’s home in West Bay, the defendant took away both her and COE’s 1 phones and turned them off without explanation. She and the defendant went to one of the 2 bedrooms and it was while they were alone together there that the def spoke to her. 3 4

¶ [111] NE’s evidence was: 5 “He basically said that he had to teach Shaquille a lesson.” 6 7 He was not calm at this stage. He was not friendly towards me. He was 8 very aggressive. I started to cry and he asked me why I crying for my man 9 for. I interpreted that as being a reference to Shaquille – a reference to 10 Shaq being my man. He said that when he reach down to MDL that 11 Shaquille had licked him in his head with a piece of metal pipe. 12 … he did not say what it was he had to teach him or what lesson it was. He 13 just said he had to teach Shaq a lesson and that Shaq was begging for his 14 life and Mike Bush was begging for his life as well. 15 16 He said that as he reached into MDL that Shaq approached him and licked 17 him in his head with a piece of metal pipe. He said that he went to his house 18 and Shaq followed him. He said that Shaq was at every door and he tried 19 to exit from different doors and every door that he tried to exit Shaq was at 20 that specific door. He said that Shaq had a gun on him and he had to do 21 what he had to do. 22 23 When I said that I was referring to Shaq – that Roger had to do what he had 24 to do. 25 26 He said he was struck in the head with metal pipe as soon as he reached 27 MDL. He did not say about different times about being struck with anything 28 else. 29 30 He told me another time, sometime after, that he was struck with a ratchet 31 that it was a ratchet that he [SB] had not had a gun. 32 33 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 36 of 97 He did not say anything about how it came to be that Shaq was begging for 1 his life. He did not say what happened to Shaq. 2 3 He said that he made Moises get rid of the thing. 4 5 …… 6 7 He did not describe to me how Shaq ended up dead only that he had to teach 8 him a lesson. 9 10 From what he said, apart from Roger and Shaq, [he said in reference to 11 Mike Bush] can you imagine baby that Mike Bush was begging for his life.” 12 13

¶ [112] NE’s evidence was that this was a short conversation and after it was finished she believed 14 that the defendant went out and spoke to COE. 15 16

¶ [113] NE related that the next morning the defendant directed her not to go to work. He also 17 threatened her: 18 19 “He said and I must make sure not to tell anybody about this because he 20 would wipe out my whole family if I said anything, he has people on the 21 street and he has people in the force. By the force, I understood him to mean 22 the police force.” 23 24 COE was told by him to take me home to Carnegie Way at Northward. Eric, 25 was COE’s boyfriend. He stated that Eric could not accompany us and if me 26 and COE had any smart ideas he would take out Eric.” 27 28

¶ [114] NE’s evidence was: 29 “In light of what he told me the night when I was talking to him privately I 30 did not go to police. I thought about it. I decided not to. I decided not to 31 because I was in fear especially from what I just found out. And he had a 32 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 37 of 97 gun on him as well. What I found out I am referring to was that he had 1 killed Shaq.” 2 3

¶ [115] NE testified that she was arrested on 16th of November 2019 on suspicion of conspiracy to 4 the murder of Shaquille Bush and taken to the Detention Center. She was aware that the 5 defendant had been arrested on 13 November, however, she did not know where he was 6 incarcerated at that time. 7 8

¶ [116] She was to be interviewed on the next day. She stated that before being interviewed two 9 prison officers came into her cell. One of them went to deal with an inmate in a separate cell 10 and the other officer whom she now knows came into her cell and threatened her. 11 12

¶ [117] NE’s evidence in relation to CL: 13 14 “He said the boss man say you must say nothing and hold it down that is the 15 first thing he said.” When she asked what he had said he “got more 16 aggressive with me and said the boss man say you must say no comment to 17 everything” NE stated: “I understand the boss man he was referring to as 18 Deward [Roger, the defendant].” 19 20

¶ [118] She stated that she was shocked that a person “… being a professional in such a department 21 of such high rank had threatened me on behalf of Roger.” 22 23

¶ [119] When she went to the interview she had “lost all trust in the police force” and when 24 questioned “I didn’t make any comment about the questions about the allegations being 25 made.” 26 27

¶ [120] NE stated: 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 38 of 97 “I made no comment because of intimidation. I did not trust no one in the 1 police force and because of what CL’s threat was to me. I had intended to 2 answer the police questions before I got approached by [CL]. I had 3 intentions of telling them everything from A to Z but when I found out what 4 he threatened me I had a change of heart.” 5 6

¶ [121] NE testified that she was subsequently released on bail. She did not have any communication 7 with the defendant who was also released on bail. However, his daughter Destiny, contacted 8 her and arranged for her, NE, to go to her home. When she got there the defendant was 9 present. NE states that the defendant threatened her again. He told her that she must make 10 sure to keep her mouth shut. NE said: 11 “He told me what would happen, he would take out me and my mom. I 12 believed him.” 13 14

¶ [122] NE testified that on the 9th of December 2019 she went to COE’s house. The defendant was 15 there. He took her to a liquor store in George Town. Once there she observed a Silver 16 BMW. The defendant pulled in behind this vehicle and stopped. The defendant then got out 17 of the vehicle and went to speak to the driver of the silver BMW. NE testified that the driver 18 was CL. The defendant spoke to him for approximately 5-10 mins. When he returned to the 19 vehicle the defendant said to her: 20 21 “That man want me to take you out because he feel like you going talk. I 22 said “talk about what I don’t know what you talking about” and he said 23 let’s keep it like that. He said to me that you imagine he wants my phone 24 number but I gave him my momma’s phone number. From what Roger said 25 to me about the conversation with the man in the BMW, I asked him if you 26 trust him more than you trust me, and he said yes.” 27 28 29

¶ [123] NE stated that on 13 December 2019, the night before Shaquille Bush’s funeral, she went to 30 the Grand Caymanian Hotel with the defendant. She related that she was awakened by the 31 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 39 of 97 defendant, early in the morning at around 3am. She related that he grabbed her by her face 1 and accused her and someone named Screehie, Carlos Russell, of killing his son Shaquille 2 Bush. NE stated: 3 “I ask him what he mean. I was in so much fear I feel like I could jump off 4 the patio” 5 6 7

¶ [124] She stated that the defendant forced her and COE to attend Shaquille Bush’s funeral although 8 she did not want to go. He forced her by threatening her. NE described that the defendant 9 said something to her about Candice, that he was getting suspicious of COE and that he 10 wanted to take her out because she was acting funny. NE stated that she understood that to 11 mean he wanted to kill COE. 12 13

¶ [125] NE testified that on the day after Shaquille Bush’s funeral she purchased tickets for herself 14 and her daughter to go to the UK on the 16th of December. She hid it from the defendant. 15 While she was at the airport waiting to board her flight the defendant came to the airport. 16 She described the defendant trying to get her to go into a car with him. She did eventually 17 leave the Cayman Islands for England. 18 19

¶ [126] NE returned from England on 9th of January 2020. She stated that she returned because of 20 finances. She could not find a place to live in England. She did not contact the defendant 21 when she returned and kept her daughter out of school so that the def would not know she 22 was back. 23 24

¶ [127] NE stated that the defendant did learn that she had returned because he came to her mother’s 25 house in Northward. Her evidence was: 26 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 40 of 97 “…he told me because I left and I make him look like a murderer in front of 1 society but now I am back I have to make him look good and I must pack my 2 stuff.” 3 4

¶ [128] She testified that at the time he had a gun and so she went with him to MDL. NE stated that 5 she felt she had no other choice. She did not think the police could help her or help her in 6 time. From that time, she lived at MDL. 7 8

¶ [129] NE testified that while at MDL she saw guns there. She related on one occasion when she 9 was searching for the defendant at the compound she saw the defendant and two other 10 residents at MDL with “a table full of handguns and machine guns.” As a result she related, 11 the defendant threatened her. She said: 12 13 “The treats got worse. He threatened me my mom and my family members, 14 my cousin. He threatened me when making threats that I must not say 15 anything about what I saw or what happened. I must keep my mouth shut”. 16 17 18

¶ [130] She stated that the threats were that she was not to speak about what she saw, the guns on 19 the table. She stated further that “He [the def] did not mention Shaq Not again at any stage” 20 21

¶ [131] She confirmed having spoken to police later in 2020 and also in Jan 2021 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 41 of 97 CROSS EXAMINATION OF NE 1 2

¶ [132] NE was cross examined by counsel for the defendant. 3 4

¶ [133] She confirmed that Shaquille Bush would have been just 16 at the time that Bella was 5 conceived and that any suggestion that Shaquille Bush is Bella’s father was absolute rubbish. 6 7

¶ [134] She agreed that the defendant made his living selling ganja, that he was growing ganja at the 8 MDL. She acknowledged that she knew that while in England he had learnt to use 9 Hydroponic equipment to increase his ganja production. She denied that her mother knew 10 that the defendant sold ganja, that the defendant made a living as a drug dealer. 11 12 13 THE DEFENDANT AND SHAQUILLE BUSH’S RELATIONSHIP 14 15

¶ [135] NE was questioned about the incident that occurred on 10 July 2017 the date the family 16 returned from the UK. When asked whether she knew that it was more than just an argument 17 about finances, she denied this. However, when it was suggested to her that after Shaquille 18 Bush pointed the shotgun at her that the defendant had sent his mother Shirley off to an ATM 19 to withdraw cash for Shaquille from Roger’s account and that that money was given to Shaq, 20 NE accepted that this did occur. 21 22

¶ [136] She agreed that witness statements were given to the police regarding the incident but were 23 all withdrawn 4 days later. It was suggested to her: 24 25 Q: The bottom line is that Roger did not want Shaq to get into trouble 26 with police so that is why witness statements withdrawn? 27 28 A: Not sure, possibly 29 30 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 42 of 97

¶ [137] NE agreed that the relationship between the defendant and Shaquille seemed to have returned 1 to a “perfectly harmonious level” after this incident. She also said was unaware of any issues 2 between them before this incident. 3 4

¶ [138] Asked directly: 5 6 Q: After that incident, there were no issues bet Roger and Shaq? 7 A: None that I was aware of. 8 9 10 SHAQUILLE BUSH AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS AT MDL 11 12

¶ [139] NE testified that she believed that Shaq did have problems with other people at MDL. She 13 agreed that she knew of incidents where Shaquille was involved in exchange of gunfire with 14 people connected with MDL and she was told of an incident wherein he and Mike Bush 15 exchanged gunfire and even of Shaquille being “barred from MDL for a period.” 16 17 SHAQUILLE AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH “JE” 18 19

¶ [140] NE was questioned about her knowledge of a number of violent incidents involving 20 Shaquille Bush and person known as JE. She stated she did not have any actual knowledge 21 of this but she had heard rumours. She did not know factually of any friction between them 22 in relation to a woman but agreed that this could be what caused problems between Shaquille 23 Bush and JE. 24 25

¶ [141] NE said she was aware of incident bet JE and Shaquille when JE pulled a gun and Shaq tried 26 to stab JE. She had heard of this latter incident on the 12th November 2019, from Roger (the 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 43 of 97 defendant) when she went with the defendant to MDL and saw COE. Roger received a phone 1 call and that was what was told of the conversation. 2 3

¶ [142] NE stated that she was aware that Kerry Bush, Shaq’s baby mother, was in a relationship 4 with JE but NE said that she may not have known that in 2019. 5 6 THE PATERNITY ISSUE 7 8

¶ [143] With respect to the paternity issue it was suggested to NE that she knew that the defendant 9 did not give any credence to the rumors, and that he knew they were rubbish. She denied 10 this. NE’s response was: “False. What you are saying is false.” 11 12

¶ [144] It was suggested that the defendant had no reason to require NE to have a paternity test and 13 that, as he knew the rumour was a lie, “why would he ask you to call up for paternity test.” 14 NE responded that she was trying to obtain clear evidence to show to all gossip mongers that 15 Shaq was not the father. It was suggested that it was NE who was keen to demonstrate that 16 Bella was Roger’s child. She denied this saying that she already knew it as a fact and that it 17 was the defendant who told her to look up DNA centers. 18 19

¶ [145] NE agreed that the defendant had never asked her directly if there was any truth to the rumour 20 that she had been to bed with SB. She stated that the rumours began during the period after 21 the incident with the defendant in October 2019 for which he was eventually arrested. 22 23

¶ [146] When asked whether she agreed that there were a number of occasions when the defendant 24 could have spoken directly to Shaquille at MDL, that there was nothing to stop him speaking 25 directly to Shaq about the rumour, she responded that she was not sure. 26 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 44 of 97

¶ [147] It was suggested that “this evidence of these rumours was all part of a fictitious narrative 1 where you and those supporting you are seeking to suggest that it is all because of rumour 2 why Shaq got shot, although you and he knew it was rubbish.” 3 4

¶ [148] NE’s response was “I would hope he knew it was rubbist that it is not the truth.” 5 6

¶ [149] NE was cross-examined further: 7 8 Q: None of that happened in the way you described because there was 9 nothing in rumour. You are making this up to suggest motive. This 10 did not happen. There was no sexual jealousy. 11 12 A: I am not sure if there was sexual jealousy. 13 14 15

¶ [150] NE stated that she did not recall telling the police that the defendant was responsible for 16 these rumours. 17 18 INCIDENT ON 14TH OF OCTOBER 19 20

¶ [151] NE was questioned about her feelings towards the defendant after this incident. She was 21 shown extracts of WhatsApp messages between herself and a friend after the date of the 22 incident8. 23 24

¶ [152] She admitted that in the conversation she told her friend that she was looking for a new 25 boyfriend and that the defendant was a waste of space. NE explained that she wanted to 26 move on with her life, the defendant had abused her in front of their daughter and that as far 27 as she was aware he had also been unfaithful to her. 28 29 30 31 8 See pages 648 and 649 of the exhibit bundle JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 45 of 97 COE AND SELLING DRUGS FOR THE DEFENDANT 1 2

¶ [153] NE testified that she was unaware that her cousin COE sold drugs for the defendant. She 3 stated that she believed that the reason that the def bought a new phone for COE on the 12th 4 of November was because she COE had helped to get them back together and it had nothing 5 to do with the drug trade. 6 7

¶ [154] She acknowledged there was a period when she and COE were not talking to each other. 8 9

¶ [155] It was suggested to her that this was as a result of an incident where a vehicle which she had 10 sold was used in a shootout which resulted in COE’s partner and the father of her child being 11 shot. 12 13

¶ [156] NE responded that she did not know if this was the cause of the years of silence between 14 herself and COE before she went to the UK 15 16 11TH NOVEMBER 2019 17 18

¶ [157] NE was questioned about the meeting with Shaquille Bush at Everglo Bar on the night of the 19 11th November 2019. She agreed that there was a conversation between the defendant and 20 Shaquille Bush and that Shaquille asked the defendant for a draw of weed which the 21 defendant gave to him. It was suggested to her that this was an indication that they were on 22 good terms that evening. NE’s reply was that she was not sure. 23 24

¶ [158] It was further suggested to her that her evidence of the defendant grabbing her phone and 25 using it to call Shaquille Bush after they had seen him at Everglo Bar never happened. NE 26 insisted that it did happen. 27 28

¶ [159] It was further suggested as follows: 29 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 46 of 97 1 Q: There was nothing to stop Roger ringing Shaq anytime about 2 rumours or speaking to him directly at MDL 3 A: No sir but he phoned off of my phone. 4 Q: You have built the story about spending night at Carnegie Way and 5 Roger ends up sobbing on your chest uncontrollably. 6 A: I said I was in disbelief. 7 Q: None of this happened. 8 A: I wish that was the case 9 10 THE DATE OF THE SHOOTING 11 12

¶ [160] NE was questioned about her evidence about her movements on the 12th of November. She 13 agreed that after the defendant, herself and Bella left Cash Wiz the defendant went in front 14 of her to MDL. It was suggested to her that she knew that the defendant had drug business 15 to do at MDL. NE did not confirm this. 16 17

¶ [161] It was further suggested to NE that when the defendant called her after she left Pop-A-Top 18 and told her not to come to MDL that she did not ask him why because she knew he had 19 drug business to conduct. She denied this. 20 21

¶ [162] It was suggested to NE that while the defendant directed her to go in the direction of the 22 Turtle Farm after she picked him up at OO Road, he never got out of the car, stripped off his 23 clothes, and threw them into the sea. 24 25

¶ [163] NE insisted that he did and that and when he returned to the car naked he put on a pair of her 26 pink trousers which she had in the car. 27 28 29 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 47 of 97

¶ [164] It was suggested that when they went to the Road off North West Point Road that they went 1 there for the defendant to collect a stash of drugs. In response NE said: 2 “He said that but there was no draw of weed. I know what it looks like and 3 there was no draw of weed.” 4

¶ [165] NE stated that she first learnt that Shaquille Bush had been shot while on the bypass on the 5 way to her mother’s house when she received some phone calls. She stated in cross 6 examination: 7 “Roger could hear calls coming in and various different [people and] 8 suggestions being made, JE, Jamaicans and then Roger Bush” 9 10 11

¶ [166] She said she could not recall who said it was “Deward” [the defendant] that shot Shaq. 12 13

¶ [167] It was suggested that no one said that the defendant was responsible for Shaq, but of 14 Jamaicans shooting Shaq and, that it was then that the defendant asked her to stop the car so 15 he could get out. That was when he jumped out of car and he left behind his phone and 16 wallet. NE stated that she could not recall him leaving his phone and wallet. She also did 17 not recall handing in his wallet to the police. 18 19 THE EVENING OF THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2019 20 21

¶ [168] NE in cross examination stated that the defendant had what looked like a sliver chrome 22 handgun in his waist, and that he had come to the yard with it in the past. She described it: 23 “The end of it is black the trigger is silver. And the handle is black.” It was suggested to her 24 that this never happened, him having a handgun. She insisted that it did. 25 26

¶ [169] She maintained that on the way to Chrissie Tomlinson Hospital, and while in the carpark 27 there, the defendant was lying on his back and occasionally peeking out. She also maintained 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 48 of 97 that the defendant did go into the water at Prospect Point although she could not say whether 1 he took his clothes off then or if he had the handgun when he returned. 2 3

¶ [170] It was suggested to her that the defendant never threatened her or gave the account as she 4 stated relating to the death of Shaquille Bush. It was suggested to her: 5 6 Q: On your account Roger Bush took the risk of speaking twice to two 7 different people implicating himself and then spent the next few 8 days constantly threatening anybody if they breathe a word of it to 9 the police? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: It is nonsense [that] he told you anything about the way Shaq met 12 his end, it is all invented and over and above that you are to tell us 13 before the funeral of Shaq, in Holiday Inn, [Grand Caymanian 14 Hotel] he woke you up and said to you he knew that Screechie and 15 you had killed his son? 16 A: Those were his words 17 Q: [there was] no reason for him to be saying that you and Sreechie 18 killed Shaq if he had said he was involved. It did not make sense. 19 A: It did not make no sense to me either. 20 Q: Only reason it makes sense, about you and Screechie, is because he 21 never said he was involved in killing. 22 A: Of course he did, twice. 23

¶ [171] NE was questioned about an account she gave to the police after she was arrested on the 16th 24 of November, which informed the disclosure document provided to herself and her attorney 25 at the time of interview on the 17th of November 2019. 26 27

¶ [172] Counsel for the defendant went through the record of interview of NE on the 17th of 28 November suggesting to her that the questions that were being asked of her by the 29 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 49 of 97 interviewing officer Sgt Southern were based on the indications she had given him on the 1 13th and 14th of November. 2 3

¶ [173] When confronted about her responses she stated, in relation to questions about the note of 4 the officer: 5 “This is not what I told the police. Not everything there is correct. 6 ……. 7 That is what I told Southern these notes in order for him to track back. I did 8 not give the full account of what happened. 9 …… 10 The information on the disclosure form is the information I gave the pol on 11 13th and 14th of November. 12 ……… 13 I gave them this information to assist with the murder of Shaq. 14 …… 15 Certain things on the disclosure form are not correct. It is what I said but 16 not everything.” 17 18

¶ [174] It was suggested to NE that at crucial points the officers suggested that the CCTV did not 19 back up her version of events and that they did not effectively believe her when she said 20 Roger Bush not involved. 21 22

¶ [175] NE stated that she was unable to remember saying things to the officers even when it was 23 suggested to her that the matters which she denied telling them could not have been known 24 to the officers unless she had given them this information beforehand. 25 26 “Q: What you were saying to police in November 2019. They were 27 saying you were a liar and RB was guilty. The effect of the 28 interview was they were repeatedly saying you are a liar and we 29 believe that RB was guilty. 30 A: All my answers were no comment. 31 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 50 of 97 1

¶ [176] She stated further regarding her answers during the interview: 2 “I had just got threatened. I could not remember. I am traumatized by this 3 experience. 4 ….. 5 I can recall certain things but I can’t recall everything. After being 6 traumatized I have a problem with my memory” 7 8 9

¶ [177] It was suggested to NE that all of her accounts of threats to her by the defendant after he had 10 told her of his involvement in Shaquille’s death were not true. Counsel questioned why he 11 would tell her of his involvement and then spend the next few days threatening her, and that 12 this was ridiculous. NE insisted that her account of the threats was true. 13 14

¶ [178] It was suggested to NE that although she had testified that she left Cayman because the 15 defendant had threatened her, that in her communications with the defendant after she left 16 Cayman she never once accused him of being responsible for the death of Shaquille Bush. 17 18 Q: Nowhere in here do you say, anything to him about leaving Cayman 19 because he had killed his son. 20 21

¶ [179] NE accepted that she did not accuse the defendant of having killed his son. However she 22 insisted that the defendant was referencing Shaquille Bush when he said: “No beat man, 23 don’t have time for that they come out their crib, they pass their place, they go to their grave” 24 25

¶ [180] NE said “What he says is in reference to his son. That this what he said there [is] in reference 26 to what he did to his own son.” 27 28

¶ [181] She agreed that on the morning of the 13th of November she did not ask the defendant about 29 Shaquille Bush and refer to his being killed by him. 30 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 51 of 97 1

¶ [182] NE was questioned about her relationship with CT and whether it was CT who had caused 2 her to contact ACI Wright and agree to give a witness statement since Wright had assisted 3 Thomas when he was a prosecution witness. She denied this or that she had spoken to CT 4 about giving a witness statement. 5 6

¶ [183] NE testified that she met with DI Oremule in July 2020. However she stated that this 7 happened on only one occasion. She denied that she met him in the parking lot of 8 Windjammer complex on Walkers Road, that she drove to South Sound dock with him in the 9 car and asked him what the organisation [police] can do for her if she assisted in Shaquille’s 10 murder case. 11 12

¶ [184] She did recall meeting him at Plantation Village with COE. She could not recall saying to 13 him that she needed police protection or that she gave DI Oremule a piece of paper with a 14 list of personal requests. 15 16

¶ [185] It was suggested to NE that when she said she saw a table full of handguns and machine guns 17 in May 2020 at MDL in the presence of the defendant and Mike Bush that she was making 18 that up. She denied this. 19 20

¶ [186] It was put to her that she said to DI Oremule that she saw a handgun and high powered rifles. 21 It was suggested to her that her account of seeing guns was inconsistent because she was 22 lying. She insisted that she was telling the truth. 23 24

¶ [187] Counsel for the defendant questioned NE about pictures of two young women Felicia and 25 Angelica Brown which had been taken from her phone. She did not accept that they were 26 pictures taken from her phone and when confronted with the fact that they had been provided 27 by the prosecution she stated that she could not then remember if she had pictures of them 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 52 of 97 on her device even when confronted with the fact that she had mentioned the two to the 1 police as being persons that the defendant was fooling around with. 2 3

¶ [188] NE was questioned about the support she received through the justice protection programme. 4 She denied that this was part of the incentive on her part for fabricating the accounts against 5 the defendant. She denied this saying that there was no real financial gain to her for testifying 6 against the defendant. 7 8

¶ [189] Finally she denied that her accounts in 2020 and 2021 of conversations with the defendant 9 in which he confessed were complete and utter lies. 10 11 NIKKIETA EBANKS IN RE-EXAMINATION 12 13

¶ [190] NE clarified that after she left OO Road and went to the Iron Shore off North West Point 14 Road, that neither she nor Bella nor the defendant went into the water there. She re-iterated 15 that the defendant stripped off all of his clothes and threw it in the water. It was at Alfresco 16 in West Bay, that she the defendant, and Bella went into the water. 17 18 CONVERSATIONS WITH JS ON 13TH AND 14TH NOVEMBER 19 20

¶ [191] NE explained that on the 13th of November a number of threats were made to her by the 21 defendant. Because of these treats she stated that she did not feel able to speak fully and 22 openly to JS as she did later and as she did in court. 23 24 “By saying what I did, what I hoped to achieve I wanted him to get CCTV 25 so he could arrest Roger so I would not have to be in this situation.” 26 27

¶ [192] She explained that she only gave JS a partial account. 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 53 of 97 “I told him some things but not everything. I did not tell him the full account 1 that I gave to wright did not tell john everything because I did not know who 2 to trust. I just basically told him where locations were at so he could get 3 the CCTV footage.” 4 5 6

¶ [193] NE was unable to remember the details of what she had said to the officer on the 16th of 7 November. 8 9

¶ [194] NE stated that in the Witness Protection Prog she got 1750 per month. “In Cayman I earned 10 25 per hour or 70,000 per annum. I was better off in Cayman working.” 11 12 13 EVIDENCE OF (“COE”) 14

¶ [195] This witness gave evidence from behind a screen following a Special Measures direction 15 given by this Court. 16 17

¶ [196] COE related that NE is her cousin. She knew the deceased Shaquille Bush from the time he 18 was a young boy about age 12. She knew him well and regarded him as a friend. She knew 19 that he lived in MDL. She testified that she also knew the defendant. She knew him as 20 “Deward.” He was related to the father of her child, Robert Bush. She at one point lived in 21 MDL with Robert Bush. 22 23

¶ [197] COE described that she played a role in NE’s and the defendant’s relationship. She said it 24 was she who first introduced the two. She described her relationship with NE that from 25 sometime in 2015 and for a period of three - four years, they did not really have any 26 communication with each other, that is, generally during the period NE and the defendant 27 were in England. 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 54 of 97

¶ [198] Her evidence was that around the time of the murder in November 2019 she lived in Mount 1 Pleasant with her boyfriend. Leading up to that period she had not had any communication 2 with NE for some time and she was also not on speaking terms with the defendant. 3 4

¶ [199] She testified that in early November 2019 the defendant and David Parchment came to her 5 home. David Parchment told her that the defendant wanted to speak to her however she was 6 not in the mood to speak to him and she asked for him to come back on another night. She 7 described that David Parchment and the defendant did come back. The defendant asked her 8 to speak to NE, to persuade NE to allow the defendant to speak to her. 9 10

¶ [200] COE related that shortly after speaking to the defendant she received a phone call from NE. 11 It was the day after the defendant had approached her. She stated that this was a coincidence. 12 NE came to her home in Mt Pleasant to speak to her. She was aware that after she spoke to 13 NE, NE and the defendant were back in contact with each other. 14 15

¶ [201] COE testified that on the day of the murder the 12th of November 2019 she tried to contact 16 NE and the defendant. When she could not reach them she went to MDL. The defendant 17 and NE arrived together while she was at MDL. 18 19

¶ [202] She stated that it appeared to her that they had both of them had been to the hairdresser. 20 There was a discussion about it being her birthday and NE and the defendant wanted to get 21 her a phone – and an upgrade. 22 23

¶ [203] She described that she saw NE again that day at her boyfriend's home at Mount Pleasant. 24 NE and her baby daughter came there at some time after 5:00 o'clock on the afternoon of the 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 55 of 97 12th of November. When NE arrived, she was just heading out to the pharmacy. She had 1 not been expecting her to visit. A little while after NE arrived, she received a telephone call. 2 3

¶ [204] COE stated: “I did not know who it was at first but she turned and looked at me with a state 4 of worriation.” 5

¶ [205] COE stated that after the phone call was finished NE appeared extremely nervous and 6 confused and NE left soon thereafter. 7 8

¶ [206] COE’s evidence was that after NE left she went to the pharmacy. While she was at the 9 pharmacy, she got a phone call from one of her girlfriends who told her then that she had 10 heard that Shaquille had been shot. She made her way to MDL. When she got there, she 11 noticed that the police had already had yellow tape across the yard. 12 13

¶ [207] COE did not remain there long. She headed back to her boyfriend’s apartment at Mount 14 Pleasant. She related that she was not there for more than 20 minutes to half an hour when 15 she got a phone call from NE who wanted her to come and see her as she did not know what 16 was going on. COE agreed to do that and went to meet NE at her mother’s home in 17 Northward. 18 19

¶ [208] Having arrived there NE wanted to go some to get cigarettes from the store and she did not 20 want to speak around her daughter Bella. They drove out in COE’s car and parked in an area 21 next to a Burger King. While parked there NE received a phone call. It was the defendant. 22 After the phone call COE drove to an area next to the pharmacy at Grand Harbour. When 23 she parked the car, COE described as follows: 24 25 “Another vehicle joined not too long after we pulled up and parked. My car 26 was facing out towards the main road and the silver Honda Accord pulled 27 up. It was one just like Deward’s [the defendant’s] black one but this one 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 56 of 97 was silver and the windows were tinted. I could not see who was inside the 1 car. Deward got out. …he had on a white shirt and a knee length jeans 2 pants, denim. The white shirt was a regular white shirt.” 3 4

¶ [209] COE stated that when the defendant got out of the car she noticed he had a little bath rag in 5 his hands and that he had something in his waist and a towel was being held in front of it. 6 She testified: 7 “I assumed it was a gun. I can't remember if I saw the gun in the car or right 8 before coming in the car. I had suspicions of what it was.” 9 10

¶ [210] COE continued that after leaving the pharmacy the defendant directed her to a road to the 11 left of Grand Harbour. She stated that at the time her mind was fluttering with thoughts and 12 she was trying to keep an eye on what the defendant was doing. When they got there, the 13 defendant got out of the car. They were not there for too long. NE also got out of the car 14 but she stayed in the car. She related that the defendant got out he went straight in towards 15 the seaside by the water. It was very dark and at that point she could not see what the 16 defendant was doing. 17 18

¶ [211] The defendant eventually got back into the car and the defendant directed. She drove and 19 they eventually stopped by Chrissie Tomlinson hospital, in the parking lot. Her evidence 20 was: 21 “We stopped and I did not feel comfortable with this. I did not want to hear 22 what he had to say to her. I made my way out of the vehicle so they could 23 have some time to speak to each other. I decided to go, I figured the less I 24 hear the better for me. I went across the street to get something to drink and 25 came back and I was sitting on the wall in the parking lot area for a time. 26 Then I got back in the car.” 27 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 57 of 97

¶ [212] COE said when she got back in the car, she noticed that the defendant had a handgun with 1 him in the back seat. She described: 2 “…he [the defendant] was kind of all over the place. He was kind of lying 3 down like leaning over in the back kind of slouching.” 4 5

¶ [213] COE’s evidence was that the defendant then told her to drive to her boyfriend's house. When 6 she arrived at her boyfriend’s house they all got out of the car. She told her boyfriend to stay 7 in his room and don't come out. The defendant wanted the phones from herself and NE. He 8 did not say why. 9 10

¶ [214] She left the house to go to the store leaving NE and the defendant and her boyfriend there. 11 When she returned the defendant and NE were in the living room. They eventually went to 12 a back bedroom and NE and the defendant spoke to each other for a brief moment. Eric 13 stayed in his room and NE stayed in the back bedroom 14 15

¶ [215] COE described that she was in the living room with the defendant. She related that the 16 defendant “he looked like I don't know if he was scared or true sadness but I know he was 17 crying I just start to talk to him about God.” 18 19

¶ [216] COE said: 20 “He did not go into detail with me at first. The topic he was basically telling 21 me, the first story, was he did not mean to do it. Tthe topic was you know 22 him basically trying to tell me that his life was in jeopardy because Shaquille 23 was licking him over the head. We were talking about Shaquille. It was 24 many stories - never the same story that night from him. [The] first story 25 was that Shaquille was threatening Bella and then he told me that Shaquille 26 was trying to shoot after him and then he said that he had a pocket knife, 27 that Shaquille had a pocket knife. One minute he was trying to shoot him 28 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 58 of 97 and the next minute Shaquille had a pocket knife. But I think the first thing 1 I had asked him is if you would want to make his way with Janet to speak to 2 her because they'd shared a child he kept saying no he can't do that he 3 doesn't want to do that and I said why and he said because Janet knows me.” 4 5

¶ [217] COE’s evidence regarding Shaquille was: 6 “He said first …that Shaquille hit him on the head with a piece of pipe then 7 he said he did that as soon as he came out of the car and then the story 8 switch to, well, Shaquille had a gun, and then the story switch to, well, no, 9 he had a pocket knife and then the last story … was that Shaquille was 10 threatening to kill Bella.” 11 12

¶ [218] COE stated that she did not know what to make of it. She stated that the defendant told her 13 that he had made his way inside the house to be able to finally get free from Shaquille. COE 14 said Roger Bush continued: 15 “I went from door to door and he was at the front door and I go to the back 16 and he at the back and I go back to the front and he's at the front I could not 17 get away from him.” 18 19

¶ [219] She related that the defendant also said to her that he had to “teach him a lesson because he 20 could not hear, he just could not listen.” 21 22

¶ [220] COE stated: 23 “He [the defendant] make it seem like when he came out of his house that 24 Shaquille started firing shots at him. He said he fired at Shaquille and I 25 asked him then well was it quick he said as quick as it could be he said it 26 was quick it was fast and then I said do you think he suffered and he paused 27 and stop and look at me and said no, no, he did not. He said that Mikey, 28 Mike Bush was begging for his life. Shaquille he did not say Shaquille said 29 anything. He said that Mike Bush was there and one or two tenants were 30 there but they left out right before the incident happened.” 31 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 59 of 97

¶ [221] COE’s evidence was that the defendant remained at 166 Mt. Pleasant the rest of the evening. 1 She described that during the night the defendant 2 “…just kept on back and forth looking out the windows, keeping check on 3 me making sure that NE waw in the room and making sure that Eric was 4 there. He kept telling me that if anyone came don't let them in.” 5 6

¶ [222] COE stated that the next morning the defendant made a phone call to someone using her 7 phone. She could hear the defendant’s side of the conversation. COE said: 8 “I guess he was asking if everything was clear at Logwoods, [if there was 9 a] commotion down there, if Mike had dealt with the thing, something in 10 that manner.” 11 12

¶ [223] She said she then drove the defendant to MDL. The defendant got out of the car and she left 13 him and went home. She was aware that NE went to England. She stated that during this 14 time the defendant would “pop up randomly sometimes twice a day. He was completely upset 15 and when he came to the house was just in a rage.” 16 17 CROSS EXAMINATION OF CANDICE ORRETT-EBANKS (COE) 18

¶ [224] COE was cross-examined by counsel for the defendant. He questioned her about whether 19 she was aware of a shooting at MDL in which the father of her child was shot, that a car 20 connected with NE was used to bring the shooter to that address. COE stated that she did 21 not know anything about that. 22 23

¶ [225] She agreed that there was a breakdown in the relationship with NE and that she had been 24 warned by the police regarding indecent images which had been sent to her phone by NE. 25 She accepted that she had pleaded guilty and appeared in court for ganja consumption and 26 possession. 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 60 of 97

¶ [226] She agreed that up to the time that NE called her in early November 2019, she had not spoken 1 to NE from the time that she had returned to the island in 2017, that this was a call out of the 2 blue, and that the phone call from NE soon after the defendant had come to see her was 3 entirely coincidental. 4 5

¶ [227] It was suggested to COE that her relationship with the defendant was a little more 6 commercial. It was suggested to her that she sold drugs for him. She denied this. She 7 accepted that she bought drugs from him but she did not sell ganja for him. 8 9

¶ [228] She knew that this was a kind of business for the defendant and that he dealt in ganja. She 10 knew that he had hydroponic equipment on MDL to grow ganja. 11 12

¶ [229] COE confirmed that she had heard that Shaquille and Patchie were “bucking heads” because 13 they were having relations with each other’s girlfriends. 14 15

¶ [230] She confirmed that NE had told her that she NE had been told by someone on the telephone 16 that it was the defendant who had shot the deceased. She could not recall if NE had at the 17 same time mentioned being also told that it may have been Jamaicans or JE. 18 19

¶ [231] It was suggested to her that she was incorrect to say that the defendant has a gun with him 20 when she saw him later that evening of the 12th of November. She stated that she saw it on 21 several occasions. She stated that the defendant told her to be quick and not to bring anyone 22 back with her. 23 24 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 61 of 97

¶ [232] COE also agreed with counsel for the defendant that the defendant was pacing around during 1 the night, looking out through windows, and seemed to be worried about people turning up 2 at that address. The defendant told her: “if anybody come don’t let them in.” 3 4

¶ [233] She agreed with counsel’s suggestion that the defendant was worried that he might be set up 5 to be shot by Jamaicans. COE stated: “As far as what I was told, and I observed he was 6 paranoid about Jamaicans.” 7 8

¶ [234] It was suggested to COE that she was making up the account of what the defendant confessed 9 to her about his involvement in the death of the deceased. She denied that she had made up 10 the account. She stated that the defendant was giving all sorts of jumbled up stories. 11 12

¶ [235] When it was suggested to her that she had never before said that the defendant had stated to 13 her that the deceased had threatened Bella she insisted that she had mentioned that to the 14 police before. 15 16

¶ [236] COE insisted that she could not forget the important parts of what had been told to her by 17 the defendant, that she could always remember the truth. She insisted that those things were 18 not told to her by NE. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 62 of 97 EVIDENCE OF DC SAMANTHA SILLITOE 1

¶ [237] Samantha Sillitoe is a Detective Constable attached to Major Incident Room of the RCIPS. 2 She was tendered for cross examination. In cross-examination she related that she was aware 3 of a report that COE was sending dirty photos of NE around. She met with COE and found 4 similar photos in the possession of COE on her phone. She caused her to delete the stored 5 images from the phone and warned her about committing further offences. 6 7

¶ [238] She stated she knew JE. She was able to say that images on NE’s phone appeared to be of 8 that JE. 9 10

¶ [239] She confirmed that the police were in possession of information, intelligence information 11 about JE. This intelligence information sought to link JE to various incidents between 12 himself and the deceased, Shaquille Bush. The officer was clear that what was related was 13 intelligence information only, information received or made available to the police but she 14 was unable to comment on the truth or otherwise of that information. 15 16

¶ [240] The officer went on to relate nine (9) instances on various dates between the 25th August 17 2019 and the 13th November 2019, the day after the murder. These were all instances in 18 which the police had intelligence information regarding the nature of the relationship 19 between JE and Shaquille Bush, the use or threatened use of firearms or possession of 20 firearms on the part of each and friction between them over a woman/women. Intelligence 21 reports received on 13/11/19 suggested that: 22 23 i. JE and three (3) Jamaicans planned to do the shooting; 24 ii. Suggested that 3 Jamaicans came in on a boat from Jamaica; and 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 63 of 97 iii. There was a dispute between JE and Shaquille Bush and over a quantity of 1 drugs a few days before. 2 3

¶ [241] In re-examination officer Sillitoe confirmed that following a serious crime it is usual for the 4 police to receive word-of-mouth information throughout the inquiry and that this information 5 related to various persons. In this case there was also information received that referred to: 6 i. Jamaicans only being responsible; as well as 7 ii. Other information in which JE and Roger Bush (the defendant) were named; 8 as well as 9 iii. Other information in which others in the Bush family – Michael, Moises, 10 and Roger – were names mentioned. 11 12 EVIDENCE OF DI OREMULE 13

¶ [242] DI Oremule was appointed to act as Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) in the investigation 14 of the murder of Shaquille Bush on the day of murder. During the course of the investigation, 15 he was aware that an Osman letter, (i.e. a personal safety warning) dated 22nd January 2020 16 was issued to NE. 17 18

¶ [243] In cross examination he confirmed that the investigation into the murder was termed 19 Operation Thermometer. He confirmed that notes from a meeting of Operation Thermometer 20 on the 13th January 2020 included one entry of “NE-CT”. He confirmed that there was a 21 decision that: “ACI Wright was to continue to speak to CT and CT was to introduce Wright 22 to NE and then Wright was to introduce the Cold Case team. 23 24 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 64 of 97

¶ [244] Inspector Oremule could not confirm that CT was to be an intermediary between the 1 investigation team and NE. He was aware that DCI Wright dealt with the case of CT but 2 stated he did not know the details of that case. 3 4

¶ [245] Inspector Oremule confirmed that he had two meetings with NE. During the first NE asked 5 him to get into her car because she did not trust police. DI Oremule said NE: 6 7 “… drove me around to South Sound dock and parked and inquired of me 8 what the organisation can do for her if she assists with the Shaq murder 9 case.” 10 11

¶ [246] DI Oremule also met NE on the 17th July at Plantation Village where her mother worked. 12 He recalled that COE also attended that meeting and that they presented him with a piece of 13 paper with a list of requests. 14 15

¶ [247] Among those requests were to be able to stay on island in a gated community, financial 16 assistance, immunity, anonymity. He confirmed that one of the entries appeared to be related 17 to the need for a contract, “before statement” 18 19

¶ [248] Inspector Oremule stated that he saw NE again in July 2020. He related that NE told him 20 that Roger Bush never admitted the shooting, referring to the shooting of Shaquille Bush and 21 that the reference to NE and seeing guns as recorded in his notes of his discussion with her 22 was not to her seeing guns on the day of the incident but on the day she left Roger Bush 23 sometime in May 2020. 24 25

¶ [249] Inspector Oremule noted that NE had said to him that Roger Bush, on that occasion, was 26 upset when he realized what she had seen. 27 28

¶ [250] Oremule related that NE stated that she saw: 29 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 65 of 97 “…a Handgun and high-powered rifles around the 28th May 2020 at MDL. 1 He [the defendant] did not want her to see them. She did not know they 2 were there. She came outside and saw them.” 3 4

¶ [251] In re-examination Officer Oremule confirmed that it was correct that before NE was admitted 5 to the Justice Protection Programme she was interviewed on tape by ACI Wright on the 11th 6 September 2020 and for a second time on tape as a significant witness on the 19th January 7

¶ [2021] 8 9 EVIDENCE OF DI ANDERSON TAYLOR 10 11

¶ [252] Anderson Taylor is a Detective Inspector who took part in the investigation in November 12

¶ [2019] On the 13th November 2019 he arrested the defendant at MDL. Upon cautioning him 13 the defendant replied “for my own son, look how unnu going antagonize man.” Taylor stated 14 that he took that to mean, Look how you all going to antagonize me. 15 16

¶ [253] The defendant was handcuffed to be taken to the Cayman Islands Detention Centre. He was 17 transported in a caged unit, a salon car equipped in that way. Whilst being transported he 18 was in chain link handcuffs that were fixed in front of the body 19 20

¶ [254] The defendant started to behave in a disorderly manner in the back seat of the vehicle. He 21 kicked the right window continuously. His actions caused the officer to stop the vehicle. The 22 defendant was spoken to however as the journey continued the defendant kicked the right 23 rear window out of place and he attempted to get out through the window feet first. The 24 escort unit assisted in placing the defendant in rigid handcuffs for the rest of the journey to 25 the Detention Center. 26 27 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 66 of 97 CROSS EXAMINATION OF DI ANDERSON TAYLOR 1

¶ [255] Officer Taylor agreed that the defendant appeared to be distressed that he was being arrested 2 in relation to his own son’s murder. 3 4 EVIDENCE OF DS ANDREW GRAHAM 5

¶ [256] Andrew Graham is a Detective Sergeant who became involved in the investigation in 6 November 2019. He interviewed the defendant on the 14th and twice 16th November. 7 8

¶ [257] The defendant refused to be photographed for any injuries he may have had on his body after 9 arrest. The three interviews were “No Comment” interviews. 10 11

¶ [258] The officer related that interviews were normally conducted in interview rooms at the 12 Detention Centre but the defendant refused to come out of his cell. A portable interview 13 machine was utilized to give the defendant the opportunity to speak. Attempts were made 14 to engage with the defendant, but the defendant did not respond during the interview on the 15 14th of November. 16 17

¶ [259] The defendant was offered free legal advice on the 14th of November, but he did not take 18 advantage of that offer. 19 20

¶ [260] The officer detailed that the defendant declined to respond to questions such as: 21 i. Questions surrounding his recent relationship with Shaquille; 22 ii. Where he went and what he did on the 12th November; 23 iii. Did he have an altercation with Shaquille; 24 iv. Did he shoot Shaquille; 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 67 of 97 v. Questions about his mobile phone, wallet and clothing; 1 vi. His whereabouts during shooting. 2 3

¶ [261] The defendant remained silent throughout the interview until it was terminated. 4 5

¶ [262] On 16 November the officer conducted two further audio-video interviews with the 6 defendant on the same topics relating to the death of Shaquille Bush. 7 8

¶ [263] By this stage he was legally represented by legal counsel. On this occasion the defendant 9 provided his full name. He stated that he wished to uphold his rights in relation to all 10 questions asked of him. 11 12

¶ [264] The questions asked of the defendant included: 13 i. Who lived in MDL area; 14 ii. What was his and NE’s relationship with Shaquille like; 15 iii. What was his relationship with NE; 16 iv. What were his movements on the 12th November; 17 v. Who was at MDL that day; 18 vi. Where he went after he left MDL and who with; 19 vii. The whereabouts of his Mobile phone, wallet, and clothing from that day; 20 viii. Had he ever used a firearm; 21 ix. Any explanation for death or Shaquille Bush. 22 23 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 68 of 97

¶ [265] Later the same day, he was interviewed for a third time with legal counsel present. During 1 this third interview the defendant gave his name and date of birth. He was cautioned said he 2 understood it. In relation to all questions asked he stated: “I wish to uphold rights”. 3 4

¶ [266] The Defendant was asked questions about his cell phone. Among the questions asked of 5 the defendant were the following: 6 i. Did he own telephone 9220589; 7 ii. He was asked about NE’s phone; 8 iii. Access to black Honda Accord 190 006; 9 iv. Was he in the Honda or the Kia on the 12th November; 10 v. Did he use his Driver’s Permit to buy a mobile phone from cash wiz; 11 vi. Did he drive to MDL separate from NE stopping at Pop-A-Top; 12 vii. Did he have an altercation with the deceased before shooting him; 13 viii. Did he leave MDL on foot and then run across Hell Road to OO Road; 14 ix. Did he leave MDL because he knew there was shooting; 15 x. He was asked about the black Honda left at the premises; 16 xi. What had transpired that led to the shooting of his son. 17 18 Evidence of DC Richard Sherwin 19

¶ [267] Officer Sherwin became involved in the investigation of the murder on 12th November. He 20 was present at the interviews of the defendant on three occasions - on the 14th and at the two 21 interviews on the 16th of November with Sergeant Graham. 22 23

¶ [268] He confirmed the circumstances surrounding the officers going to the defendant’s cell to 24 conduct/record the interviews on those dates. 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 69 of 97

¶ [269] On the 17th of June 2021 he and other officers went to MDL. The aim of the operation was 1 to arrest the defendant on suspicion of the murder of Shaquille Bush and he did so. 2 3

¶ [270] Upon arrest, the defendant made no reply. The defendant was also cautioned. He made no 4 reply to caution. 5 6 CROSS EXAMINATION 7

¶ [271] Regarding the interview of NE conducted by Detective Constable Southern, Officer Sherwin 8 confirmed that he was present during this interview which took place on the 17th of 9 November 2019. During that interview, DC Southern asked NE about things she had told 10 him a couple of days before. NE made no comment to the questions asked of her during the 11 interview. 12 13

¶ [272] At the time of the defendant’s arrest on the 17th of June 2021, no firearms were recovered 14 from MDL. The officer’s evidence was that he later became aware that items relating to 15 ganja including sachets, mason jars, packages of ganja, glass jars and rolling papers were 16 found at the property. 17 18 EVIDENCE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KURT WALTON 19 20

¶ [273] As part of his responsibilities, Deputy Commissioner related that he is charge of and 21 responsible for the Justice Protection Programme in the Cayman Islands. NE was admitted 22 to the Programme in May 2021. He confirmed the payments and allowances made for her 23 and her for daughter. 24 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 70 of 97

¶ [274] He confirmed that COE was also admitted to the witness support scheme. COE opted for a 1 lesser level of protection. He stated that there was no personal gain for her. He related that 2 COE does not receive a monthly allowance and she funds her own basic living necessities. 3 His evidence was that COE could have applied for a monthly allowance and there are 4 chances that she would have been granted it but she chose not to ask for it. 5 6

¶ [275] He was questioned about a person in the programme being able to claim a reward for 7 providing information relating to the murder of Shaquille Bush. He stated that he was not 8 aware of anyone who had provided information to be entitled to a reward. He agreed that 9 such an application may have to be made after a conviction. 10 11 EVIDENCE OF CHIEF INSPECTOR WRIGHT 12 13

¶ [276] Officer Wright’s evidence in chief centered on the custody records of the defendant and NE 14 during November 2019. Chief Inspector Wright’s evidence was that the defendant was in 15 the presence of CL and another officer during the period of his detention. From the custody 16 records Chief Inspector Wright was able to say that CL was one of the officers who took 17 custody of the defendant when he went on smoke breaks and to shower. On the 17th of 18 November the defendant was taken for a smoke/stress break by CL. This break lasted for 19 some 13 minutes from 8:46 am until the defendant was returned to his cell at 8:59 a.m. 20 21

¶ [277] NE was also detained during the same period. Chief Inspector Wright’s evidence was that 22 her custody records show that a notation was made on the 16th of November 2019, that 23 Officer Southern had provided information and the record updated to state that contact had 24 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 71 of 97 been made with NE’s attorney in respect of an interview scheduled for 11:00 am on the 17 1 November 2019. 2 3

¶ [278] Chief Inspector Wright’s evidence regarding that entry was that any officer dealing with NE 4 would have access to it and could read the custody record. CL took over duties relating to 5 NE from 7:00 am on 17 November. At 9:12 am CL and AC Red took NE out of her cell for 6 a smoke break. She was returned to her cell at 9:20 am. 7 8 CROSS EXAMINATION 9

¶ [279] CI Wright was cross examined. He confirmed that he was the officer investigating the 10 allegation against CL by NE. He confirmed that CL had since provided a statement in that 11 investigation wherein he stated that he did not have a conversation with NE in which he 12 instructed her to answer no comment during her interview as alleged and had denied all 13 allegations. Chief Inspector Wright testified that CL’ statement was to the effect that he did 14 not have a meeting with Roger Bush in November 2019 or any other occasion and that he 15 did not drive a silver BMW that month or on any other occasion. 16 17

¶ [280] Officer Wright also confirmed that he has since spoken to AC Red, the other officer who 18 dealt with NE on the morning of the 17th of November at the Detention Center and that the 19 effect of what AC Red told him was that he did not witness any contact with NE or hear 20 anything untoward when she was taken for the smoke break between 9:12 and 9:20 am on 21 the 17th of November. 22 23 EVIDENCE OF SCENES OF CRIME OFFICER LEWIS REID 24

¶ [281] Lewis Reid, the Crime scene investigator attended the scene at MDL on 12 Nov 2019. 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 72 of 97

¶ [282] Much of his evidence centered on the reconstructing the manner in which Shaquille Bush 1 would have met his death. The evidence is part of the common ground as to the cause and 2 manner of the deceased’s death that is not at issue in this case. I accept his evidence of those 3 matters gleaned from the positioning of recovered spent shells and casings, his 450 4 photographs of the scene and his observations that ground his re-construction of the crime 5 scene. 6 7

¶ [283] On the 15th of November, Officer Reid processed the KIA Sorento motor car driven by NE. 8 He examined it for potential GSR as well as blood spatters. Upon examination he noted that 9 the vehicle appeared to have been wiped down either prior to the incident or before police 10 had recovered it. He confirmed that he had checked all areas in the vehicle including the 11 front passenger area, the inner side of passenger door, the lower section of front passenger 12 seat, upper section of front passenger seat, above the glove compartment, inner handle of 13 front passenger door and outer handle of the front passenger’s door. Neither GSR nor blood 14 were noted in the vehicle. 15 16 Cross examination of Officer Lewis Reid 17

¶ [284] Officer Reid was unaware of the results of the testing of DNA from exhibits recovered from 18 the crime scene showed that a moderate stringency association had been found between 4 19 bullet casings found at the scene and a partial multiple source DNA received from a revolver 20 involved in an incident in 2015. The revolver was thrown from a vehicle which police 21 officers were attempting to stop along east-west arterial bypass. 22 23

¶ [285] Officer Reid confirmed that he was asked to focus on the front passenger seat of the KIA 24 Sorento, to examine the vehicle for GSR. He checked the entire vehicle with light source. 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 73 of 97 Neither the GSR examination nor the light source examination revealed the presence of GSR 1 residue or of blood in the interior of that vehicle. 2 3

¶ [286] This Officer also stated: 4 “In my statement [I said that] I observed that there were signs of apparent clean up. 5 I noticed that in the front passenger side, nowhere else in vehicle. The only place I 6 saw that in the vehicle.” 7

¶ [287] However, the Officer could not say if there had been wiping down in that area when that 8 wiping down would have been done. 9 10 EVIDENCE OF THE PATHOLOGIST DR DAVID ANDREW ROUSE 11 12

¶ [288] David Andrew Rouse is an experienced pathologist though not the original pathologist in 13 this case. His evidence was that it was relatively common for a pathologist to give expert 14 opinion without seeing a body. In this case, having not examined the body himself, he was 15 provided with the prosecution case summary, the original pathologist’s postmortem first 16 report of 18/11/2019 and his subsequent report of January 2020 as well as body maps, 17 witness statements, the Scenes of Crime report, the statement of the SOCO Lewis Reid 18 together with scene and postmortem photos. Dr. Rouse was also in possession of the 19 deceased’s medical reports and radiology from 18 November 2019. 20 21

¶ [289] The pathologist’s evidence as to the cause of death is not challenged. I accept Dr. Rouse’s 22 evidence as to his observations and conclusions on the cause of death of Shaquille Bush. I 23 accept his evidence as set out above at paragraph 23 above. 24 25 26 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 74 of 97 1 DETECTIVE SERGEANT RUSSELL THESE 2

¶ [290] Det Sergeant Russell These was part of the major incident team and dealt with the CCTV 3 footage in this case. The provenance and continuity of that footage are accepted and there 4 has been no challenge to the sequence as detailed in the story boards produced as exhibits in 5 this case compiled by this officer. These complied individual story boards were compiled 6 from frames taken from moving footage of each of 3 vehicles in this case: the Black Honda 7 driven by the defendant, the KIA Sorento driven by NE and the beige or gold colored Camry 8 driven by Moises Bush on the date of the incident. 9 10

¶ [291] Officer These’s evidence in cross-examination was that he was able to obtain footage of 11 vehicles leaving the area of MDL around the time of the shooting which was approximately 12 5:18 pm on 12 November 2019. He testified that there was a total of 6 vehicles that left MDL 13 after 5:18 pm that evening. He made attempts to track and trace the identity of the owners 14 of those vehicles. He was unable to trace and identify most of those vehicles and their owners 15 because by the time the request had been made of him the Government CCTV retention 16 period had passed. He was able to identify three of the vehicles, however three of the 17 vehicles recorded leaving from the area of MDL remain unidentified. 18 19

¶ [292] Apart from his duties compiling the CCTV evidence Officer These was also present during 20 the interview of NE on 17 November 2019. He was questioned about the course of that 21 interview. He denied that he had made any suggestions to NE about why she was involved 22 with the defendant. He denied that the interview was hostile or that NE was being accused 23 of covering up for the Defendant during the interview. 24 25 26 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 75 of 97 EVIDENCE OF JOANNE DELANEY 1

¶ [293] Joanne Delaney is an intelligent analyst employed by the RCIPS. She analyzed a number of 2 cell phones in this case. There is no issue as to attribution of phones and users in this case. 3 Ms. Delaney was not challenged regarding the results of her analysis of cell phone data 4 which form the basis of the exhibits tendered in this case. 5 6

¶ [294] She was clear in her evidence how she was able to use cell phone data to plot the movements 7 of persons of interest relevant to the investigation of the murder. 8 9

¶ [295] Ms. Delaney related that the last cell network activity for the deceased was made at 4:49 pm 10 on the 12 November 2019. She was able to state that the deceased phone registered at the 11 same location from the time of that last use, that it remained active and receiving at the same 12 cell site until 5:49 pm that evening. 13 14

¶ [296] The defendant’s cell phone was last used at 5:37 on 12 November. This was a call received 15 from NE’s cell phone and answered at that time. This was 10 minutes after the call was 16 made to 911 about the deceased being shot. 17 18

¶ [297] Ms. Delaney testified that she compared cell site locations of the Defendant’s phone to 19 CCTV evidence of the movements of the defendant’s black Honda motor vehicle and found 20 that they correlated and were not different. She stated that for the calls to and from the 21 defendant’s phone for the period of half an hour before the 911 call was made and the period 22 after the call up to the final communication at 5:37, the pole utilized was the North West 23 Point mast sector 1. She testified that this was the same cell mast and cell sector as was 24 being used by the deceased cell phone at that time. 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 76 of 97

¶ [298] The defendant’s handset and the sim card used by that handset at the relevant time have 1 never been recovered. 2 3

¶ [299] Ms. Delaney testified that she analysed toll data from the telephone of CL for the period 1 4 November to 18 December 2019. She made the request for this data in March 2021. 5 6

¶ [300] She had the telephone number for the defendant’s mother. She analysed the data for any 7 contact between the CL phone and the number for the defendant’s mother. She stated that 8 there was no contact between the CL phone and that of the defendant during that period. 9 10

¶ [301] There was contact between CL and the defendant’s mother’s number. The first was on 17 11 November, the date that the defendant was released from the Detention Centre, the second 12 on the same date. There were no other calls identified between those two numbers. 13 14

¶ [302] There were two text messages exchanged between the two numbers. The first was on the 29 15 November 2019 from CL to the defendant’s mother’s number asking: “yow fam you good”. 16 The second was also received on the same date saying: “bless up ennu” 17 18

¶ [303] The defendant’s mother’s number was stored on the cell phone seized from CL. It was stored 19 as “Bushy”. 20 21 CROSS EXAMINATION 22

¶ [304] In Cross Examination Ms. Delaney agreed that her evidence of the defendant’s phone and 23 its usage based on the cell site and mast, that this evidence cannot specifically locate 24 somebody at a particular spot only the general area that that telephone is in. 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 77 of 97

¶ [305] Ms. Delaney gave evidence of police ballistic system identification statistics and, in 1 particular, of 8 incidents linked ballistically to the firearm used to shoot the deceased on 12 2 November 2019. She detailed those instances and the persons involved. Ms. Delaney stated 3 that since the murder of the deceased to her knowledge the weapon has not been linked to 4 any other matter in the system. 5 6

¶ [306] That was the extent of the evidence on the prosecution case. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 78 of 97 THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE 1 2

¶ [307] The defendant has nothing to prove. There is no burden on the Defendant to prove that he 3 is innocent. There is no onus on the Defendant to prove anything at all. The Defendant has 4 no obligation to prove that he is not guilty, or to explain the evidence offered by the 5 Prosecution. At the close of the prosecution case the defendant elected not to give evidence. 6 The defence did not call any witnesses at trial. 7 8

¶ [308] As highlighted in the cross examination of the main prosecution witnesses, the defence case 9 is that this defendant did not murder his son, SB. The defence case is that while there may 10 have been some undercurrent of sexual distrust between the defendant and NE, that NE has 11 exaggerated the scale of this distrust in order to provide a motive for the defendant’s actions, 12 on her evidence, his involvement in the murder of the deceased. 13 14

¶ [309] The defence raised the evidence before the court of reports of incidents of violence 15 concerning the deceased and JE before and close to the date of the murder. The evidence of 16 Officer Stillitoe was referenced. The officer related 9 instances on various dates between 25 17 August 2015 and 13 November 2019, the day after the murder, in which the police had 18 intelligence information regarding the nature of the relationship between JE and the 19 deceased, the use or threatened use of firearms or possession of firearms on the part of each 20 and friction between them over a woman or women. 21 22

¶ [310] The defence also raised the history of firearm. Forensic evidence of DNA recovered from a 23 shell casing at the scene was matched to a gun that had been used in various shootings on 24 the island. The defence submitted that the incidents logged all seemed to be associated with 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 79 of 97 persons in the Birch Tree Hill gang and not anyone from Logwoods, to which the was 1 allegedly associated. The defence asked the court to consider that JE, who had a history with 2 the deceased was allegedly part of the Birch Tree Hill gang and that he was not in custody 3 at the time that the deceased was shot. 4 5

¶ [311] Regarding the evidence of Fitzroy Smith, it was pointed out that Smith never said in his 6 statement read into evidence that he saw the defendant at the premises at the relevant time 7 before Smith left the premises and before he heard gunshots. The defence ask the court to 8 consider that when the shooting started that it may not be surprising that anyone, including 9 the defendant, may have been alarmed and petrified and fled for their safety. That this may 10 have been the reason that the defendant fled to the area across form MDL to OO Road where 11 he was eventually picked up by NE. 12 13

¶ [312] The defence asked the court to consider the evidence of Officer These of vehicles leaving 14 around MDL close to the relevant time on the day of the murder, just after 5:18 pm. Further, 15 the evidence of the witness Terry Robinson was that two Jamaicans jumped in his car as he 16 left, that there were three vehicles which remain unidentified which left the vicinity of MDL 17 at approximately 5:21pm, 5:27pm and 5:37pm on the date in question. 18 19

¶ [313] The Court was asked to consider the lack of forensic evidence linking this defendant with 20 the crime. Although the defendant was in NE’s car shortly after the incident no GSR residue 21 was found in the car, in the passenger seat or anywhere else in the vehicle. That there was 22 also no trace of blood found in that vehicle. 23 24

¶ [314] The defence asked the court to consider the defendant’s actions in light of his concerns about 25 Jamaicans and security whether this could this explain his actions on the evening of the 12th. 26 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 80 of 97

¶ [315] I have considered all these matters raised by the defence. I am careful not to speculate about 1 matters for which there is no evidence before the court. I must consider whether these 2 matters highlighted by the defence raise reasonable doubt, whether individually or 3 collectively they cause me to doubt the evidence presented by the prosecution. 4 5

¶ [316] Even if this evidence does not cause me to doubt the prosecution evidence, I must be careful 6 to consider the prosecution case, for it is only on that evidence if I am sure that all of the 7 elements of the offence had been made out that I can convict the defendant. If I am not sure 8 I must acquit. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 81 of 97 EXPERT EVDENCE 1

¶ [317] In this case, there are various pieces of expert evidence and or testimony. The Agreed Facts 2 show that there is agreement between prosecution and defence as to admission of the expert 3 evidence regarding toxicology, GSR, ballistics, CCTV, Telephone attribution and 4 downloads/analysis of various relevant phone evidence. There is no issue with regard to the 5 evidence of the pathologist Dr Rouse. Although there was no objection by the Defence to 6 these items of evidence however, I still remind myself that I can accept or reject any part or 7 all of the expert evidence contained in these items. 8 9

¶ [318] After assessing the expert evidence outlined above, I am sure of and accept all of the 10 evidence and findings of the experts, from Dr Rouse as to the cause of Death, the accuracy 11 of the telephone and the CCTV records and that of the Scenes of Crime Officer Lewis Reid. 12 13 SPECIAL MEASURES 14

¶ [319] NE gave evidence by Video link and COE from behind a screen. I will assess their evidence 15 in the same manner as I would the evidence of any other witness in the case regardless of 16 how it is given. The fact that these witnesses gave evidence in this way is no reflection on 17 either the defendant or the witness and I am mindful of this. This fact will not affect my 18 judgment of these witnesses’ evidence. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 82 of 97 Court’s Conclusions 1

¶ [320] The Crown relies on the evidence of NE to prove its case against this defendant to provide 2 evidence going to the motive means and opportunity that it says should satisfy the court that 3 it was this defendant that inflicted the injuries, in this case the gunshot wounds that caused 4 SB’s death. 5 6

¶ [321] Motive: NE’s evidence is of the defendant’s jealousy. Her evidence of his actions is 7 supported by the evidence of COE who stated that the defendant was constantly checking 8 her phone to see any communication between herself and NE while she was in England to 9 see if there was any conversation between them about a man. NE related instances in which 10 she describes the defendant making comments about her and ‘her man”. 11 12

¶ [322] Her evidence was that the defendant was concerned about the rumours of the paternity of 13 Bella. When counsel for the defendant sought to question her about why the defendant did 14 not confront the deceased directly about this, she answered that he could have, and she did 15 not know why he didn’t. I have considered the questions directed at NE in cross examination 16 as to the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the deceased and her responses. 17 18

¶ [323] NE’s evidence of the defendant’s reactions on the morning of the murder. It was suggested 19 that this was further evidence of the defendant’s feelings about this issue of the paternity of 20 Bella and his feelings towards the deceased. It was suggested to her that she had made up 21 the story the defendant having asked her to call the clinic to speak about getting a DNA test. 22 However, the evidence of Joanne Delaney shows that NE did call the clinic on the date and 23 at the time as she stated in her evidence. The telephone evidence supports NE’s evidence of 24 a phone call made to the deceased on the night of the 11th of November 2019 when NE says 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 83 of 97 that the defendant used her telephone to call the deceased so that NE could inquire what he 1 had to say about the rumours of Bella’s paternity. 2 3

¶ [324] The Prosecution is not required to prove motive. The Prosecution has evidence of motive, 4 and is free to present it in this case for my consideration. Motive is not an element or 5 ingredient of the crime of Murder. However I accept that it may, if established, be evidence 6 of a malicious mind. 7 8

¶ [325] Means – the evidence of NE as to the defendant’s means, did he have access to a firearm, a 9 firearm being the weapon that killed the deceased. NE’s evidence is of seeing the defendant 10 with a firearm on the date of the incident when she met him near to the Pharmacy in Grand 11 Harbour. She described the firearm in detail in her evidence. She also gave evidence of 12 having seen the deceased and others at MDL with handguns and machine guns when she 13 lived there with the deceased sometime in May 2020. 14 15

¶ [326] On the evidence there was an inconsistency in her account of having seen these guns, 16 between her account in her evidence in chief and evidence of another prosecution witness 17 DI Oremule. DI Oremule’s evidence was that NE had stated to him that she saw handguns 18 and high-powered rifles on the occasion at MDL. In her evidence NE stated that she saw “a 19 table full of handguns and machine guns.” She was confronted with this inconsistency 20 during cross examination by counsel for the defendant. She insisted that it was not as a result 21 of her lying about what she had seen. She testified that the defendant had threatened her not 22 to say anything about what she had seen, the guns. 23 24 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 84 of 97

¶ [327] The inconsistency is on a major issue. It is one of the planks of the prosecution case. 1 However, this inconsistency does not cause me to doubt her account. Her evidence is 2 consistent that she saw guns. I accept that, as she described, she saw the defendant with a 3 gun at Grand Harbour on the evening following the murder, I accept that she saw the 4 defendant in the presence of guns at MDL. 5 6

¶ [328] I accept the evidence of COE that the defendant had a gun with him when she saw him at 7 Grand Harbour on the evening following the murder. 8 9

¶ [329] With regard to guns at MDL, on the issue of means, there is also NE’s evidence when 10 questioned by counsel for the defendant that the deceased had put a shotgun to her head on 11 the 10 July 2017; that he had retrieved a sawed-off shotgun from the bushes at MDL. While 12 this is not evidence of the defendant being in possession of a firearm, it is evidence of there 13 being such at MDL. I bear in mind that the premises at MDL were raided in 2021 at the 14 point of the defendant’s arrest and no firearms were found at the premises. 15 16

¶ [330] Opportunity: The prosecution also sought to use the evidence of NE coupled with other 17 prosecution evidence to establish that the defendant had the opportunity to commit the 18 murder on the 12 Nov 2019. Her evidence was that she and the defendant had made plans 19 to go to MDL with Bella on that evening. She related that after they left Cash Wiz that this 20 was the plan. Her evidence was that the defendant went ahead of her and that as she 21 proceeded to MDL after going into Pop a Top in West Bay, the defendant called her and told 22 her not to come to MDL but to go to her cousin’s home at Mt Pleasant. NE’s evidence was 23 that the defendant called her thereafter and told her to come and pick him up at OO Road 24 which it has been established is across the road from MDL or in close proximity to where 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 85 of 97 the murder occurred. This she did. She did so at approximately 5:35pm. The prosecution’s 1 case is that the murder occurred at between 5:15- 5:18 pm. This clearly puts the defendant 2 at or near the scene of the murder at the relevant time. 3 4

¶ [331] There is the CCTV evidence which also supports the fact of the defendant being at or near 5 the scene at the relevant time. The evidence of Officer These, with the aid of the CCTV 6 evidence, was that the Black Honda driven by the Defendant was last seen within 10 metres 7 of MDS at approximately 4:49 pm on the 12 of November. That vehicle was not seen again 8 on any camera on that road that evening but was found inside the police Cordon at the crime 9 scene at MDL. The evidence of Officer Lexine Welcome, was of the black Honda 10 registration no 190-006 being at the premises parked approx. 50 m from house and the area 11 where the deceased’s body was found. 12 13

¶ [332] With respect to the police cordon and timing the evidence of Officer Garland was that he 14 first heard the report of the shooting at approx. 5:30 pm and engaged his emergency lights 15 and drove directly to the premises. His evidence was that a cordon was established by 16 unarmed officers who attended at the location soon after he arrived at the premises. 17 18

¶ [333] Officer These’s evidence was of seeing what appeared to be a person crossing from the area 19 close to MDL going towards OO Road shortly after NE’s car is seen entering OO Road that 20 evening is also relevant. NE’s car is seen leaving OO Road shortly thereafter. This again 21 is in close proximity to the time that the police vehicles were seen entering MDL. 22 23 24 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 86 of 97 Confession 1

¶ [334] NE’s evidence amounts to a confession on the part of the defendant on in the night of the 12 2 November. He told her various things: He did what he had to do; He had to teach Shaquille 3 a lesson; Shaquille was begging for his life and Mike Bush was begging for Shaquille’s life, 4 too. 5 6

¶ [335] The defendant sought to explain his actions by stating to her that when he reached Miss 7 Daisy Lane the deceased struck him on the head with a piece of metal pipe. He told NE that 8 he went inside his house but that at every exit he would find Shaquille waiting and Shaquille 9 had a gun – hence he did what he had to do. A few days later, the defendant told NE that 10 that Shaquille had a ratchet. 11 12

¶ [336] It was suggested to NE that she had fabricated this account. She insisted that this was what 13 the defendant told her in Candice’s house at Mount Pleasant. The Crown suggests that the 14 account to NE shows the defendant’s involvement in the crime and that independent 15 evidence shows that he was lying about the circumstances surrounding the crime, since there 16 was no evidence of a second firearm at the scene, all casings were found by the firearms 17 officer to have come from the same gun as were the bullets recovered from the body of the 18 deceased. Also, no ratchet was found at the scene, there was no forensic evidence of same 19 or that the deceased had such a weapon at the scene 20 21

¶ [337] NE also said that the defendant spoke of having told Moises Bush to get rid of “the thing”. 22 The prosecution case is that this court should believe her account because there is 23 independent evidence of which NE was unaware at the time that she gave her statement and 24 from which it can be inferred supports her account. COE also gave evidence that she heard 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 87 of 97 the defendant speaking on the telephone on the morning of the 13 November 2019. He was 1 using her cell phone. Her evidence was that she could hear the defendant’s side of the 2 conversation. “I guess he was asking if everything was clear at Logwoods, … if Moises had 3 dealt with the thing, something in that manner.” 4 5

¶ [338] The Crown case is that what both NE and COE could not have known was that the Toyota 6 Camry, driven by Moises Bush had been seen at these times and doing the following: 7 8 - At 5:04:30 on the 12 November, leaving Miss Daisy Lane, turning right in the 9 direction of Watercourse Rd. 10 - At 5:10:44 it parks at Public Beach. 11 - At 5:15:50 leaves Public Beach and drives back to Miss Daisy Lane. 12 - At 5:18:44 It turns back into Miss Daisy Lane. The evidence of Fitzroy Smith 13 is that this is very soon after the sound of gunfire has been heard. He confirms 14 that Moises Bush was driving the Camry at this point. 15 - At 5:27:15, the Camry again leaves Miss Daisy Lane travelling away from the 16 crime scene. 17

¶ [339] This evidence raises a strong suspicion as to what Moises Bush was doing on the Crown’s 18 submission. While this evidence has not been advanced as being entirely probative it is 19 independent evidence tending to support the fact that Moises Bush would have seen the body 20 of the deceased but left the yard soon thereafter. The court notes that the Camry left MDL 21 after the shooting and before the defendant is picked up by NE at OO Road. 22 23 Areas of inconsistency or implausibility in NE’s evidence 24 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 88 of 97

¶ [340] Apart from the inconsistency relating to guns related above, there were other areas of 1 inconsistency in NE’s testimony. Her evidence contradicted that of DI Oremule about the 2 number of times that she met with him and also as to what was discussed, what she sought 3 to secure from the police if she gave evidence against the defendant. When confronted with 4 this contradiction NE denied that she had met with Oremule on an occasion before meeting 5 with him at plantation village. She denied that she had handed him a list of demands. 6 7

¶ [341] I have considered her evidence on these matters. I have also heard the evidence of DI 8 Oremule who testified that he made notes of these matters in his police notebook and was 9 able to produce copies of those notes from which he refreshed his memory as well as a copy 10 of the note handed to him by NE. I prefer the evidence of DI Oremule. 11 12

¶ [342] As the trier of fact, I must examine the testimony of the various witnesses. I know that I am 13 free to accept all of a witness' evidence or reject all of a witness' evidence. I may accept part 14 of a witness' evidence and reject part of the evidence of that same witness. I may accept the 15 evidence of one witness called by one side, and reject the evidence of another witness called 16 by the same side. 17 18

¶ [343] I reject this bit of NE’s evidence. I prefer the evidence of Officer Oreumule as to the time 19 and content of meetings with this witness. 20 21

¶ [344] When NE was questioned about her actions upon being interviewed by Officer Southern on 22 the 17th of November, she explained that she had been threatened prior to the interview by 23 CL. She explained that this is why she gave, as far as she was concerned, a no comment 24 interview as she had been directed by the Defendant through CL. The defence submit that 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 89 of 97 her account of being threatened did not happen, that it is another instance of her lying to 1 police officers. 2 3

¶ [345] In relation to NE evidence of the threat delivered to her by CL at the Detention centre, I find 4 that the evidence presented by the prosecution shows that there was the opportunity for the 5 defendant to interact with CL and for CL to interact with NE after seeing the defendant on 6 the morning of the interview. 7 8

¶ [346] CL had access to records that NE was to be interviewed on 17 November 2019. At 8:46 am 9 on that morning, CL and another officer took RDB from his cell for a smoke break, returning 10 him 13 minutes later at 8:59 am. Just 13 minutes later, CL and Red went to NE’s cell, at 11 9:12 am. She was taken for a smoke break and placed back in her cell 8 minutes later. 12 13

¶ [347] Her evidence is also supported by the evidence of Joanne Delaney. The records for CL’s 14 cell phone were not sought until March 2021, well after NE had given her statement detailing 15 the threat to her by CL and her reasons for not responding to the questions put to her by 16 Officer Southern. On the Crown’s case, NE’s evidence was that the defendant told her he 17 was asked by CL for his cell phone number and that he provided his mother, Sherlene’s, 18 number. They both apparently lived in the same house at Miss Daisy Lane. 19 20

¶ [348] It is difficult to see how NE could have known that the Defendant had given Sherlene’s cell 21 phone number to CL unless the defendant had told her so. The telephone records show that 22 there were 4 calls by CL to this number in the 12 days following the defendant’s release from 23 custody after his initial arrest in November 2019. This is independent evidence which seems 24 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 90 of 97 to confirm that the defendant and CL were in communication immediately after the 1 defendant’s release from custody at the end of 2019. 2 3

¶ [349] I agree with the prosecution submission that this telephone evidence, obtained so much later 4 than the time that NE gave her statement implicating the defendant in the murder, provides 5 quite independent confirmation of a link and connection between the Defendant and CL and 6 is evidence about which NE could have had no idea when she made her allegations. This 7 evidence also goes to support her explanation for any inconsistency surrounding the 8 interview with Officer Southern. 9 10

¶ [350] I have considered the defence submissions surrounding NE’s account of what happened at 11 the Holiday Inn on the night before the deceased funeral. There is no dispute that the 12 allegation against her and Screechie was made by the defendant. The defence contend that 13 the defendant would have never said this if he had admitted to killing his son. Also, that the 14 court should consider NE’s reaction to this allegation. She did not confront the defendant 15 then about the fact that he had already admitted to her that he had killed Shaquille. The 16 defence questioned if this was plausible. Also was it plausible that after the funeral when 17 NE was in the UK that she and the defendant would not have discussed what the defendant 18 had done, that the WhatsApp messages between them do not show evidence of this. 19 20

¶ [351] NE’s response to these suggestions when they were put to her was that she could not account 21 for the defendant accusing her and Screechie of killing Shaquille and that in fact there was a 22 reference to the killing in the WhatsApp messages, in the form of the quotation from a song 23 sent by the defendant: “no beat man, don’t have time for that they come out their Crib, they 24 pass their place, they go to their grave” 25 26 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 91 of 97

¶ [352] Regarding phone calls received by NE while in the KIA with the defendant on the Esterly 1 Tibbetts Bypass on the evening after the murder. The defence asked the court to consider 2 that there were not three calls from different persons, but the phone records suggests that the 3 calls were from the same individual. I am not satisfied that the evidence of NE is clear that 4 the defendant was in a position to hear that an accusation had been made against him in one 5 of the calls of him being responsible for the shooting of the deceased. 6 7

¶ [353] I believe her evidence that he jumped out of the vehicle and went off in the area of Lantern 8 Point. The CCTV evidence shows NE turning off the Bypass and heading unto Eastern 9 Avenue as she testified. I believe her evidence that she went there looking for the defendant. 10 11

¶ [354] The main issues in this case involve the credibility of the witnesses who gave evidence of 12 the defendant’s involvement and responsibility for the murder of the deceased. The 13 prosecution put its case to the court in this way: that the defendant had the motive, the means, 14 and the opportunity to murder the deceased and that the evidence proves beyond any doubt 15 that he did so. The Crown’s case on each of these aspects is dependent on the reliability 16 and credibility of the evidence of the witness NE. If this court does not believe her evidence, 17 on the material particulars going to the elements of the offence, the prosecution would not 18 have proved it case. 19 20

¶ [355] Counsel for the defendant has suggested through his questions of NE that she was fabricating 21 this evidence to get back at the defendant, that as she said in her messages with her friend on 22 Whatsapp, she hated him, that he was a pussyhole woman beater, that as far as she was 23 concerned he was a waste man and that she wanted to have relationships with other men, 24 that she was going to breed for a next man. Counsel suggested that she was suspicious of 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 92 of 97 the defendant having relationships with other women and asked the court to note her actions 1 in confronting Angelina Brown. 2 3

¶ [356] I have considered NE’s motives for fabricating this testimony against the defendant. NE 4 admitted in evidence that she was angry with the defendant for having abused her in front of 5 her daughter. She felt that he had been unfaithful to her. I observed the witness when she 6 was confronted with these suggestions. She was not inconsistent in her evidence except as 7 has been highlighted above. She gave her evidence in chief in a very straightforward manner. 8 Her evidence held up under cross examination. I find that NE is a reliable and truthful 9 witness. I accept her evidence. 10 11

¶ [357] I found COE to be a credible witness. I believe her evidence that the defendant did confess 12 his involvement and responsibility for the death of the deceased. She was a forthright 13 witness who admitted that she sometimes had issues with her memory. 14 15

¶ [358] COE’s evidence was consistent with her earlier account. It was not suggested that she had 16 given another version of her evidence. It is unusual that the witness stated that she never 17 discussed what the defendant had confessed to her with NE on the morning of the 13th of 18 November 2019, nor the defendant’s actions at Grand Harbour or the carpark at CTH or 19 indeed when they got back to her apartment at 166 Mount Pleasant, given the nature of the 20 information that had been told to her and the fact that she was well acquainted not only with 21 the defendant but also the deceased. 22 23

¶ [359] I do not believe that much turns on this fact. The witness has not been accused of collusion. 24 She has been accused of fabrication of this evidence and she has denied this. Her evidence 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 93 of 97 is strikingly similar to that of NE. It was not suggested to her that she had anything to gain 1 from fabricating this evidence against the defendant. Her account that she had had no 2 involvement with either the accused or NE before the defendant came to her to ask her to 3 speak to NE on his behalf was not challenged. Her evidence that she had not spoken to NE 4 for approximately two years before NE came to see her in October 2019 was not challenged. 5 The evidence of Kurt Walton was that COE had not sought the full package as a protected 6 witness that was available to her. I find her evidence to be reliable. 7 8

¶ [360] I find her evidence consistent with the account given by NE of the defendant’s actions on 9 the night of the 12th of November 2019 at Grand Harbour, at the CTH carpark and later at 10 Mt Pleasant. 11 12 Circumstantial evidence 13

¶ [361] Some of the evidence on which the prosecution relies is direct evidence. The main direct 14 evidence implicating the defendant is that of NE and of COE. NE provides evidence from 15 which motive, means and opportunity may be inferred well as evidence of the defendant’s 16 confession to her of his involvement in the murder of the deceased. COE provides evidence 17 of the defendant’s actions subsequent to the murder and also of his confession to her separate 18 and apart from his conversation and confession to NE of his involvement in the murder of 19 the deceased. 20 21

¶ [362] The prosecution also relies circumstantial evidence, different strands of evidence none of 22 which proves that the defendant is guilty but which, the prosecution say, when taken together 23 with other evidence prove the case against this defendant. 24 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 94 of 97

¶ [363] The first bit of circumstantial evidence is that the defendant was at the scene or in the vicinity 1 of the murder at the relevant time. This is the evidence of the CCTV as well as the route and 2 eventual position of the Defendant’s vehicle at MDL on the day of the murder. The 3 Defendant called NE to get him from MDL. He had driven to MDL in the black Honda 4 motor car. However, that vehicle remained at the scene. He left in NE’s vehicle shortly after 5 the murder 6 7

¶ [364] Evidence of the Defendant’s appearance and demeanour after he was picked up by NE at 8 OO Road at approximately 5:35 pm on the day of the murder is another bit of relevant 9 evidence in this regard. NE’s description of the defendant at that time: 10 11 “When I first saw him, he was very frantic and aggressive and frantic. He was not 12 calm. Far from calm. He said you want to carry the baby to the beach lets go to the 13 fucking beach. Bella was in the back seat and Roger in the front. The kia is a left- 14 hand drive. He got in right side at the front”. 15 “I said [he was] frantic. He was very sweaty”. 16 “This did not seem normal to me. What was not normal I can’t say.” 17 18

¶ [365] The defendant’s actions at North West Point Road. NE described that when she stopped the 19 vehicle as directed by the defendant, the defendant “got out and he ran to the iron shore and 20 took off all of his clothing and threw it in the water. He threw it in the ocean. He did not 21 explain why he was doing it. I could not speak to him he ran all the way out there to the iron 22 shore. I was in the car with the baby at that time. 23 24 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 95 of 97

¶ [366] NE evidence of what the defendant stated when he called her on 12 November while she was 1 in COE’s car in the vicinity of Burger King. Her evidence was that the defendant called to 2 arrange to meet her. He then called again and said that there was “too much police on the 3 road - must meet him by Hurley’s Pharmacy.” It is of note that the defendant was aware 4 and concerned about the police and no mention was made of awareness and concern about 5 Jamaicans. 6 7

¶ [367] The defendant’s actions when he directed NE and COE to go to Prospect Point on the 8 evening of 12 November after getting into COE’s vehicle at Grand Harbour. He directed 9 COE to go to Prospect Point and when they got there, he got out of the vehicle, telling NE 10 to come out of the vehicle too and to stay by the hood of COE’s vehicle where he could see 11 her. He went into the water for a couple of minutes, then rushed back to the vehicle directed 12 and them to drive to South Sound. 13 14

¶ [368] His actions while in COE’s car. When COE came back to the car at Chrissie Tomlinson 15 Hospital car park, he directed her to drive him to her house on Mt. Pleasant in West Bay. 16 NE described his actions while in the back seat of the car: “He was still on his back and he 17 occasionally peeked, he occasionally got up and look and then he went back to lying flat on 18 his back.” 19 20

¶ [369] I know that each of these pieces of evidence cannot individually be used wholly or mainly 21 to convict the defendant. However, this Court is sure that the pieces of evidence are reliable. 22 I am satisfied that these pieces of evidence which I find reliable and accept as facts in this 23 case are such that I can draw an inference that supports and is consistent with the other 24 evidence presented of the defendant’s guilt. 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 96 of 97 Adverse inference. 1

¶ [370] The defendant chose not to give evidence at trial. That is his right. He also failed to give an 2 account when he was interviewed while at the Detention Centre. I accept that he was 3 cautioned on each occasion was offered legal advice or representation on the first occasion 4 which he declined and had legal representation on the other two occasions that he was 5 interviewed. 6 7

¶ [371] The defendant has nothing to prove the burden being on the prosecution to prove its case 8 beyond a doubt from the beginning to the end of this trial. However, he has not given an 9 account either previous to or evidence in the trial to contradict or undermine the evidence of 10 the prosecution witnesses. 11 12

¶ [372] Bearing in mind and applying s.149 of the Act (2021 Revision) as I am entitled to do in 13 appropriate circumstances, in addition to the totality of the evidence against the Defendant, 14 the inference I draw from his failure to give evidence at trial is that in the face of compelling 15 direct and circumstantial evidence against him the Defendant is unable or unwilling to give 16 any evidence on his own behalf which would stand up to any proper scrutiny. 17 18 Conclusion 19

¶ [373] Apart from matters of inconsistency or implausibility concerning the accounts of the main 20 witnesses, the defence case was that there was evidence that other persons could have had a 21 motive for killing the deceased, that other persons were in the area of MDL and so could 22 have had the opportunity to kill the deceased and that the murder weapon in this case was 23 one that had an association with a gang that was not known to be from the area of MDL the 24 implication being that the defendant was less likely to be associated with such a firearm. I 25 JUDGMENT RELEASED UNDER EMBARGO NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COURT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VERDICT Judgment. R v. Bush (Roger Davard) Ind. 38/2021; Coram: Carter J. (Actg.). Date: 27.09.2022 Page 97 of 97 have considered all of this evidence and the submissions surrounding this evidence. These 1 do not cause me to doubt the prosecution evidence. After rejection of these as being 2 sufficient to raise reasonable doubt, I have considered whether the prosecution have proved 3 its case against this defendant. 4 5

¶ [374] In order to find the defendant guilty of the offence of murder, the onus is on the Prosecution 6 to make me sure of each of the following-(a)that the defendant is of sound memory(mind) 7 and discretion; (b) that the deceased is dead and (c) that he died of injuries inflicted by the 8 defendant (d) that when the defendant inflicted the injuries he did so with the intention to 9 kill the deceased or cause him grievous bodily harm, and (e) that when the defendant inflicted 10 the injuries on the deceased, he did so without lawful justification. I am satisfied so that I 11 am sure that all of these elements have been proved. 12 13

¶ [375] The verdict of this court is that the defendant is guilty on the two counts of the indictment. 14 15 Dated this 27th day of September 2022. 16 17 Madam Justice Marlene I. Carter 18 Judge of the Grand Court (Acting) 19