Police in possession of computer
Guyana Chronicle
December 13, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon said the Guyana Police Force (GPF) is in possession of the computer that was found when the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) discovered an arms cache and sensitive equipment in a pick-up vehicle at Good Hope, East Coast Demerara last week.
Allegations are that officials of the Government are aware of the purchase and use of the computer that was found in the vehicle.
At a media briefing held yesterday in the Seminar Room of the Foreign Service Institute, Dr. Luncheon said, “The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Administration is not aware of any transaction that led to the purchase, importation and use of this equipment that was described”.
He added, “We do not know how this equipment came into Guyana. We do not know how this equipment came into operation in Georgetown and in Guyana”.
The Cabinet Secretary explained that the Guyana Police Force and its leading Officials have confirmed that they are in possession of equipment that is similar.
Dr. Luncheon said he is aware that a variety of opinions and concerns are being expressed about criminal behaviours, like the Buxton saga and the discovery of the equipment. However, he would merely say that they are part and parcel of other forms of criminality, “which have gripped the nation”.
--------------
Questions abound over Good Hope arms cache computer
Stabroek News
January 20, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government officials seem unwilling to confirm the whereabouts of the computer which was found in the possession of the three men at Good Hope, East Coast Demerara, which reports say is capable of tracking calls made from cell phones.
On December 4, the three men, Haroun Yahya, Sean Benfield and Shaheed Khan were detained by an army patrol at Good Hope and handed over to the Police. They were charged and placed before the courts on January 16 but were released on bail. They were charged with possession of arms and ammunition but there was no mention of the computer. The computer has been at the centre of much speculation and when it was discovered it prompted a meeting of top security officials to consider the implications of its alleged use by the three men.
Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj told Stabroek News on Saturday that he thought that the computer is in the custody of either the police or the army. He could not say whether the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company had been given the opportunity to examine the computer to determine whether any of its functions could compromise its operations and if those functions breach the Postal and Telegraph Act. Stabroek News has been unable to contact the appropriate official at GT&T for a comment.
An official at the National Frequency Management Unit also declined to disclose whether or not the Police had approached that agency to determine whether the use of the computer to intercept phone calls requires a licence from that agency.
An official at the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions told Stabroek News that it had offered no advice to the Police as to whether it was legal for a computer with the reported capability of intercepting telephone calls to be in the possession of a private individual.
He said too that the Customs and Trade Administration of the Guyana Revenue Authority had been asked to advise whether the computer and the software had been legally imported into the country. Stabroek News has been unable to ascertain whether this advice has been tendered.
The legality of the importation arises from the fact that the software installed on the computer is only sold to governments.
-----------------------------
Seized laptop helping police fight crime
-Luncheon
Stabroek News
January 22, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on anti-crime measures
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The laptop computer seized from the three men allegedly caught with a cache of arms at Good Hope last year is now being used by the police to fight crime.
The equipment has the capacity to locate the exact position of cellular phones using satellite technology.
Responding to a question from Stabroek News, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon said at his weekly press conference yesterday that it was his understanding that the computer is in the possession of the police and was being used in their crime fighting initiative.
Pressed on the issue, Luncheon again stressed that the equipment is “being used for what it was intended to .... fight crime.” It is unclear under which provisions the computer was confiscated for use by the police. Questions have also been raised as to why its owners did not insist upon its return.
The army also found in the vehicle, equipped with bulletproof windows, weapons along with bullet-proof vests and other military hardware.
The three men, Sean Belfield, Haroon Yahya and Shaheed Khan were taken into custody and handed over to the police.
The men are now out on bail having been formally charged with weapons-possession.
--------------------------
Good Hope three appear briefly in court
Stabroek News
January 28, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three men held in December by the army allegedly with a cache of arms and ammunition on the Good Hope Public Road made a brief appearance at the Sparendaam Magistrate's Court yesterday.
Magistrate Jerrick Stephney had ordered on their first appearance that yesterday's hearing would have just been for a report from the prosecution. However, the court was told yesterday that the jackets for the case are with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Shaheed Khan, Haroon Yahya had each been placed on $500,000 bail while policeman Sean Belfield was asked to post $450,000, when they first appeared before Stephney on January 15. The three men stand jointly charged for unlawful possession of firearms and unlawful possession of ammunition. According to the prosecutor's case on December 4 at Good Hope the men had in their possession a quantity of unlawful high-powered firearms and ammunition. Belfield is also on two additional charges of unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition. The prosecutor's case is that on the same day Belfield had in his possession one Glock pistol and six 9mm rounds. He pleaded not guilty to the two charges.
The army had also found in the blue Ford open-back pick-up a police identification card, a laptop computer capable of intercepting cellular calls and a plan of the city. Nothing has been said in court about the computer. Attorneys-at-law, Vic Puran and Glenn Hanoman are representing the trio who will return to court on Friday.
-------------------
Cell phone tracking equipment not illegal
- Gajraj
Stabroek News
February 6, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on police
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no law prohibiting the use of a computer to intercept telephone calls once the privacy of an individual’s home is not invaded, says Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj.
Stabroek News had approached Gajraj about the reported use by the police of a computer confiscated from three men allegedly held at Good Hope with an arms cache in December. The use by police of technology which can locate the position of cellular phones had been revealed by Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon last month. But Luncheon has since withdrawn his statement saying reporters had misunderstood what he said.
Gajraj told Stabroek News that there is nothing in common law that prevents a person listening to a telephone conversation nor is there any specific law to allow for or disallow wire-tapping.
The three men were arrested on December 4, after police reportedly found them with a cache of high-powered weapons and ammunition.
They are Shaheed Khan, Haroun Yahya and policeman Sean Belfield and they have since been charged with illegal possession of arms and ammunition.
A legal expert has told Stabroek News that there is no breach of the law as long as the device for the purpose of listening in on the calls isn’t placed in the person’s home.
This view is based on the decisions of a number of English cases.
The expert said too that there was no breach of the law simply by being in possession of the computer. What the Police have to address is whether, given its functions, its sale is restricted and whether the person in whose possession it was found had permission to buy it.
The expert said too that there was no law preventing a person from installing bullet-proof features on a vehicle as the law allows for a citizen to take measures to ensure his safety.
Police Commissioner Floyd McDonald has declined to comment on any issue about the computer as he says it is part of a matter before the court.
But legal experts have told Stabroek News that the computer was not an issue before the court since it does not form part of the charge of illegal possession of arms and ammunition laid against Khan, Yahya and Belfield.
Stabroek News understands from usually reliable sources that the computer was never lodged at the Criminal Investigation Department and officers of that department are unaware of its whereabouts.
Nor have the sources had any requests for the return of the equipment to those who own it. Stabroek News also understands that no inquiries have been made of the Customs and Trade Administration of the Guyana Revenue Authority to determine whether it was legally imported into the country.
The bullet-proofed vehicle in which the arms, ammunition and the computer was found is still lodged at Eve Leary and no advice about its release has been given to the Police. (Patrick Denny)
---------------------
Information from tapped phone calls confidential
-Woolford
Stabroek News
February 13, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on stuff
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an offence to disclose information received from intercepting telephone calls to a third party under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (Chap 47:01) and Telecommunications Act No. 27/1990.
But the legislation does not specifically prohibit the use of information obtained by the person who intercepts a telephone call.
This is the view of telecommunications expert and broadcaster, Enrico Woolford in response to comments by Home Affairs Minister, Ronald Gajraj in the Stabroek News last week.
The Minister had said that there was no law prohibiting the use of a computer to intercept phone calls once the privacy of an individual’s home had not been invaded.
The Minister’s comments were made with respect to the capability of a laptop computer found in the possession of three men, Shaheed Khan, Sean Belfield and Haroun Yahya, who were detained at Good Hope by the army and handed over to the Police on December 4 with a cache of sophisticated arms and ammunition.
No charges have been laid against them for possession of the computer, which reportedly has the capability to intercept telephone calls from landlines or from cell phones. Woolford pointed out the Wireless Telegraphy Act No 31 even though it relates to telegrams, provides that if “a message is received contrary to these Regulations or the Act or to conditions of a licence the licensee shall not make known its contents, its origin, its destination, its existence, or the fact of its receipt, to any person other than a duly authorised officer of the Government and the licensee shall not reproduce in writing, copy, or make use of such message or allow the same to be reproduced, copied, or made use of.”
He said too that the Telecommunications Act at Section 53 provides, subject to certain provisions, “that no information with respect to any business that has been obtained or where it relates to the private affairs of an individual shall be disclosed, save with their consent, during the lifetime of that individual or the person at the time in charge of the business.”
---------------------
Confiscated laptop being used for intended purpose -Gajraj
Stabroek News
February 16, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on Confiscated laptop
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj yesterday confirmed that the laptop computer seized from the three men arrested on December 4, at Good Hope East Coast Demerara, was in the custody of the security forces. He said that he expected that it was being used for its intended purpose.
He told Stabroek News too that the police were conducting investigations into the activities and were any illegality to be uncovered they would be prosecuted, no matter who was involved.
Gajraj also questioned the existence of a "phantom squad" saying that there was as yet no evidence linking the murders in one area with those in another but conceded that there were persons capitalising on the present situation to carry out their own nefarious activities.
Gajraj stressed that as Minister, he does not condone the creation of a "Frankenstein" to deal with the present upsurge of violent crimes as the ends did not justify the means.
The Minister dismissed reports that he had instructed that the three men not be charged, saying he had insisted that a proper investigation be done before the men were placed before the courts. He insisted that this was not the time as in the past when the security forces "fitted" people for offences for which they were before the courts.
Asked if enquiries were being conducted as to how the computer came to be in the possession of the persons from whom it was seized, Gajraj observed that if its possession was not illegal then there was no need for an inquiry. He also observed when told that information on the Internet suggests that the software installed in the computer was for sale only to governments and security forces then the inquiries should be directed to those firms listed on the website.
In relation to the vehicle in which the arms and ammunition were found and for which the men had been charged, he said that once it was properly imported then legally it should be returned to its owner.
----------------------
Police keeping Good Hope arms cache
-bulletproof pickup returned
Stabroek News
August 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The police have retained in their possession all of the weapons in the Good Hope arms case citing that they were illegally obtained, a senior police source has said.
High-powered arms were found in a bulletproof pick-up vehicle on December 3, last year leading to the arrest and prosecution of three men, Shaheed Khan, Haroon Yahya and policeman Sean Belfield.
The men were recently freed of the unlawful possession charges. However, a senior police source told Stabroek News that the police had retained possession of the weapons since by virtue of the fact that they were unlawful, no one had any claim to them and they would remain in the custody of the force. The serial numbers on nearly all the weapons had been filed off.
Among the items in the vehicle were two assault rifles fitted with telescopic lenses, a 12-gauge pump-action rifle, an Uzi submachine gun, two Glock pistols as well as other handguns, a laptop computer capable of intercepting cellular calls and a plan of the city, two bulletproof vests, two camouflage caps and two helmets as well as a large quantity of ammunition of varying calibre.
The three men were intercepted by a Guyana Defence Force (GDF) patrol in the Good Hope Housing Scheme, East Coast Demerara on the night of Wednesday December 3, while allegedly standing in proximity to a blue Ford pick-up, where the weapons were found.
The pick-up, which was fitted with half-inch thick bulletproof windows was impounded by Police after the men were detained and lodged at Criminal Investigations Department (CID) headquarters, Eve Leary.
The laptop computer was programmed to track the location of cellular phone users and a list of names and cellular telephone numbers of wanted men as well as other persons were retrieved by intelligence personnel.
The three men were later jointly charged for the possession of two M-16 rifles with 278 matching live rounds of 5.56 ammunition, and two 9mm pistols with 201 matching live rounds. Belfield, who is a constable attached to the Anti-Crime Task Force unit of the Guyana Police Force, was also separately charged with two summary offences for being in unlawful possession of a .40 Glock pistol and ten matching rounds of ammunition.
During the trial, no mention was ever made of the other weapons and the accessories which were found. Since the trial magistrate, Jerrick Stephney, found that no case was made out against the men, all three were acquitted of all the charges.
Last week a senior police officer told Stabroek News that although all of the items were initially confiscated, the accessories and the bulletproof vehicle were subsequently released.
A legal expert told Stabroek News that there was no law preventing a person from installing bulletproof features on a vehicle since the law allowed for a citizen to take measures to ensure his own safety.
Asked whether any of these weapons would be used by police, he pointed out that this was not usual practice and moreover, in the case of the assault rifles the GPF would need to acquire the special 5.56 mm ammunition, since the weapons were not the type used by the force.
The laptop computer was never lodged at the CID and the officer could not offer a clue as to its whereabouts, though he believed that “it is in some official’s custody.”
Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj had said that there was no law prohibiting the use of a computer to intercept telephone calls once the privacy of an individual’s home was not invaded.
------------------------
Good Hope trio gave conflicting accounts
-superintendent who questioned them tells court
Stabroek News
October 5, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When interrogated on the morning after they were handed over by the Guyana Defence Force, Shaheed Khan, Sean Belfield and Haroon Yahya each gave different accounts to the police in relation to the weapons they are accused of possessing.
This was the testimony of Superintendent of Police Frederick Caesar on Friday, when the trial of the three men resumed before Principal Magistrate Jerrick Stephney at the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court.
Khan, Belfield and Yahya were intercepted by a Guyana Defence Force patrol at Good Hope on December 4 and are jointly charged for the unlawful possession of firearms and the unlawful possession of ammunition.
It is alleged that they were found in possession of two M-15 rifles with a quantity of matching live rounds of ammunition, and two 9mm pistols with a quantity of matching live rounds. Belfield, who is a constable attached to the Anti-Crime Task Force unit, is also separately charged with two summary offences, being in unlawful possession of a .40 Gluck pistol and 10 matching rounds of ammunition.
Led in evidence by Police Prosecutor, Corporal Edmond Cooper, Caesar said he had interrogated the men at Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters on the morning of December 5. He said he had been told that the men, who had a quantity of firearms and ammunition, were arrested by members of the GDF at Good Hope, sometime on the night of December 4.
Caesar said he had cautioned each of the men, advising them that any information they divulged could be used as evidence at criminal proceedings.
“The number one accused, Khan, said the firearms were acquired from Franco Rodrigues... Belfield said, er, replied, [that the] firearms were for protection [and] Yahya replied, he doesn’t know about firearms and ammunition, but he is a licensed holder of a shotgun and a revolver, which the army took possession of...”
Caesar said after further inquiries were made the three were subsequently charged with the offences presently before the court.
During his cross-examination, attorney Glen Hanoman, appearing for Khan, asked Caesar if he had learnt during the course of his investigation that his client was a licensed firearm holder.
“Yes, sir.”
“And in fact, he was licensed to own and operate more than one firearm?”
“That is correct, sir.”
“Now, [during] your investigation, did it come to your attention that the firearms of [Khan] were among the lot which was in custody?”
“I can’t recall.”
“In other words, you can’t deny his firearms were part of those items?”
“No, I can’t deny.”
“I am suggesting to you that when you spoke with or questioned the number one defendant, you did not show him any firearm.”
“That is correct sir, I did not show him any firearm.”
“So, when you say [Khan] replied to you, you were not sure what firearms he was referring to when he said he purchased a firearm from Franco Rodrigues?”
“I assumed...”
“You were not conclusively informed as to what firearms he referred to? Did you clarify what firearms he referred to?”
“I did not.”
“Then, you are not in a position to deny, when he replied, he may have been referring to his personal firearms?” “Could be. It could be his personal firearms he was referring to... which were among the lot.”
“As a matter of fact, you are not in a position to say whether the firearms in this case were ever shown to the defendants?” “I would not be able to say.”
Hanoman then changed his line of questioning, asking Caesar if he could explain why the men were not immediately handed over to police when they were initially intercepted. Caesar replied he could not and Hanoman then suggested to him that it was proper procedure for the Guyana Defence Force to immediately hand over persons who were detained.
“I would say it depends on the circumstances.”
“In a case like this one, in your view, as a Senior Superintendent of Police, would you agree that the army should have handed over the men immediately and not a couple of hours afterward?”
“I would agree that the army should hand over men to the police in the shortest possible time.”
“What time were the [accused] handed over to you?
“I can’t say exactly, but very early in the morning. Maybe two, two-thirty, possibly quarter to three.”
“And hasn’t it come to your knowledge that the men were detained at about 10:30 on the previous night?”
“Yes. That is my information.” “...And was any reason advanced to you why the army kept them for about four hours?”
“No, sir.”
After Hanoman completed his examination, Belfield’s attorney Vic Puran asked Caesar if he had sought to clarify Belfield’s statement. The witness said no, adding that it would be correct to say he did not know to which firearms Belfield had made reference.
Under cross-examination, Caesar said ranks of the Police Force, once given the authority from an officer who possesses the rank of Corporal or above, may carry firearms or ammunition without a licence.
“Now, at the time of this matter, Mr. Belfield was a serving member of the Guyana Police Force?”
“Yes, sir.”
“As a matter of fact, up to the 3rd of December, 2002, Mr. Belfield was in a unit of the police force that constituted the spear against banditry? His unit carried the brunt of the attack against the bandits.”
“That is absolutely correct, sir.”
In response to a query by Puran about how many policemen had been killed by this time, the witness conceded that it would be correct to say several.
“You will agree with me that the lives of members of Belfield’s unit were at greater risk than other members of the Police Force?”
“Yes, sir.”
“I am suggesting to you, sir, that Mr. Belfield’s unit had about ten persons who had the capacity to authorise Belfield to carry firearms and ammunition, without a licence.”
“There were several persons in his unit.”
Puran after this answer completed his cross-examination. Yahya, who was unrepresented at Friday’s hearing declined cross-examination of Caesar, while the Police Prosecutor declined re-examination.
--------------------
Mystery surrounds whereabouts of Good Hope laptop
Stabroek News
February 15, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on confiscated laptop
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whereabouts of the laptop computer taken from three men with a quantity of arms and ammunition at Good Hope Housing Scheme, East Coast Demerara in December 2002 is now shrouded in mystery.
The army says that it was turned over to the police, but the police seem not to know of its whereabouts.
The laptop is capable of intercepting and tracing telephone calls made from a landline or a cellular phone and the software is reportedly only sold to governments. At the time, Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj said the use of the instrument did not breach any of the laws of Guyana.
The men - Roger Khan, Sean Benfield and Haroon Yahya - were arrested by a Guyana Defence Force patrol and turned over to the police together with the laptop computer, the arms and ammunition and the vehicle in which the arms were found. A magistrate's court acquitted the three men of all the charges laid against them by the police including possession of unlicensed arms.
A senior army officer assured Stabroek News that the computer was never returned to the army. Stabroek News was unable to contact either Gajraj or outgoing commissioner of police (ag) Floyd McDonald for a comment on the issue. However, a senior police officer told Stabroek News that the computer is not with the police but could not say in whose possession it is now.
The officer said the police were advised to return the vehicle to the men, but that the weapons were unlicensed and were therefore being confiscated by the police, as well as the ammunition and other components.
The vehicle was equipped with bullet-proof windows and its body was also reinforced. Enquiries at the time to the Customs and Trade Administration and the police failed to elicit the identity of the person who imported it.
News of the arrest of the three men, one of whom was an active-duty policeman fuelled suspicion of the existence of a phantom gang, which was responsible for the deaths of a number of persons, some of whom were wanted by the police, and about which the police disclaimed any involvement.
Guyana Chronicle
December 13, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon said the Guyana Police Force (GPF) is in possession of the computer that was found when the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) discovered an arms cache and sensitive equipment in a pick-up vehicle at Good Hope, East Coast Demerara last week.
Allegations are that officials of the Government are aware of the purchase and use of the computer that was found in the vehicle.
At a media briefing held yesterday in the Seminar Room of the Foreign Service Institute, Dr. Luncheon said, “The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Administration is not aware of any transaction that led to the purchase, importation and use of this equipment that was described”.
He added, “We do not know how this equipment came into Guyana. We do not know how this equipment came into operation in Georgetown and in Guyana”.
The Cabinet Secretary explained that the Guyana Police Force and its leading Officials have confirmed that they are in possession of equipment that is similar.
Dr. Luncheon said he is aware that a variety of opinions and concerns are being expressed about criminal behaviours, like the Buxton saga and the discovery of the equipment. However, he would merely say that they are part and parcel of other forms of criminality, “which have gripped the nation”.
--------------
Questions abound over Good Hope arms cache computer
Stabroek News
January 20, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government officials seem unwilling to confirm the whereabouts of the computer which was found in the possession of the three men at Good Hope, East Coast Demerara, which reports say is capable of tracking calls made from cell phones.
On December 4, the three men, Haroun Yahya, Sean Benfield and Shaheed Khan were detained by an army patrol at Good Hope and handed over to the Police. They were charged and placed before the courts on January 16 but were released on bail. They were charged with possession of arms and ammunition but there was no mention of the computer. The computer has been at the centre of much speculation and when it was discovered it prompted a meeting of top security officials to consider the implications of its alleged use by the three men.
Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj told Stabroek News on Saturday that he thought that the computer is in the custody of either the police or the army. He could not say whether the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company had been given the opportunity to examine the computer to determine whether any of its functions could compromise its operations and if those functions breach the Postal and Telegraph Act. Stabroek News has been unable to contact the appropriate official at GT&T for a comment.
An official at the National Frequency Management Unit also declined to disclose whether or not the Police had approached that agency to determine whether the use of the computer to intercept phone calls requires a licence from that agency.
An official at the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions told Stabroek News that it had offered no advice to the Police as to whether it was legal for a computer with the reported capability of intercepting telephone calls to be in the possession of a private individual.
He said too that the Customs and Trade Administration of the Guyana Revenue Authority had been asked to advise whether the computer and the software had been legally imported into the country. Stabroek News has been unable to ascertain whether this advice has been tendered.
The legality of the importation arises from the fact that the software installed on the computer is only sold to governments.
-----------------------------
Seized laptop helping police fight crime
-Luncheon
Stabroek News
January 22, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on anti-crime measures
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The laptop computer seized from the three men allegedly caught with a cache of arms at Good Hope last year is now being used by the police to fight crime.
The equipment has the capacity to locate the exact position of cellular phones using satellite technology.
Responding to a question from Stabroek News, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon said at his weekly press conference yesterday that it was his understanding that the computer is in the possession of the police and was being used in their crime fighting initiative.
Pressed on the issue, Luncheon again stressed that the equipment is “being used for what it was intended to .... fight crime.” It is unclear under which provisions the computer was confiscated for use by the police. Questions have also been raised as to why its owners did not insist upon its return.
The army also found in the vehicle, equipped with bulletproof windows, weapons along with bullet-proof vests and other military hardware.
The three men, Sean Belfield, Haroon Yahya and Shaheed Khan were taken into custody and handed over to the police.
The men are now out on bail having been formally charged with weapons-possession.
--------------------------
Good Hope three appear briefly in court
Stabroek News
January 28, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three men held in December by the army allegedly with a cache of arms and ammunition on the Good Hope Public Road made a brief appearance at the Sparendaam Magistrate's Court yesterday.
Magistrate Jerrick Stephney had ordered on their first appearance that yesterday's hearing would have just been for a report from the prosecution. However, the court was told yesterday that the jackets for the case are with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Shaheed Khan, Haroon Yahya had each been placed on $500,000 bail while policeman Sean Belfield was asked to post $450,000, when they first appeared before Stephney on January 15. The three men stand jointly charged for unlawful possession of firearms and unlawful possession of ammunition. According to the prosecutor's case on December 4 at Good Hope the men had in their possession a quantity of unlawful high-powered firearms and ammunition. Belfield is also on two additional charges of unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition. The prosecutor's case is that on the same day Belfield had in his possession one Glock pistol and six 9mm rounds. He pleaded not guilty to the two charges.
The army had also found in the blue Ford open-back pick-up a police identification card, a laptop computer capable of intercepting cellular calls and a plan of the city. Nothing has been said in court about the computer. Attorneys-at-law, Vic Puran and Glenn Hanoman are representing the trio who will return to court on Friday.
-------------------
Cell phone tracking equipment not illegal
- Gajraj
Stabroek News
February 6, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on police
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no law prohibiting the use of a computer to intercept telephone calls once the privacy of an individual’s home is not invaded, says Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj.
Stabroek News had approached Gajraj about the reported use by the police of a computer confiscated from three men allegedly held at Good Hope with an arms cache in December. The use by police of technology which can locate the position of cellular phones had been revealed by Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon last month. But Luncheon has since withdrawn his statement saying reporters had misunderstood what he said.
Gajraj told Stabroek News that there is nothing in common law that prevents a person listening to a telephone conversation nor is there any specific law to allow for or disallow wire-tapping.
The three men were arrested on December 4, after police reportedly found them with a cache of high-powered weapons and ammunition.
They are Shaheed Khan, Haroun Yahya and policeman Sean Belfield and they have since been charged with illegal possession of arms and ammunition.
A legal expert has told Stabroek News that there is no breach of the law as long as the device for the purpose of listening in on the calls isn’t placed in the person’s home.
This view is based on the decisions of a number of English cases.
The expert said too that there was no breach of the law simply by being in possession of the computer. What the Police have to address is whether, given its functions, its sale is restricted and whether the person in whose possession it was found had permission to buy it.
The expert said too that there was no law preventing a person from installing bullet-proof features on a vehicle as the law allows for a citizen to take measures to ensure his safety.
Police Commissioner Floyd McDonald has declined to comment on any issue about the computer as he says it is part of a matter before the court.
But legal experts have told Stabroek News that the computer was not an issue before the court since it does not form part of the charge of illegal possession of arms and ammunition laid against Khan, Yahya and Belfield.
Stabroek News understands from usually reliable sources that the computer was never lodged at the Criminal Investigation Department and officers of that department are unaware of its whereabouts.
Nor have the sources had any requests for the return of the equipment to those who own it. Stabroek News also understands that no inquiries have been made of the Customs and Trade Administration of the Guyana Revenue Authority to determine whether it was legally imported into the country.
The bullet-proofed vehicle in which the arms, ammunition and the computer was found is still lodged at Eve Leary and no advice about its release has been given to the Police. (Patrick Denny)
---------------------
Information from tapped phone calls confidential
-Woolford
Stabroek News
February 13, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on stuff
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an offence to disclose information received from intercepting telephone calls to a third party under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (Chap 47:01) and Telecommunications Act No. 27/1990.
But the legislation does not specifically prohibit the use of information obtained by the person who intercepts a telephone call.
This is the view of telecommunications expert and broadcaster, Enrico Woolford in response to comments by Home Affairs Minister, Ronald Gajraj in the Stabroek News last week.
The Minister had said that there was no law prohibiting the use of a computer to intercept phone calls once the privacy of an individual’s home had not been invaded.
The Minister’s comments were made with respect to the capability of a laptop computer found in the possession of three men, Shaheed Khan, Sean Belfield and Haroun Yahya, who were detained at Good Hope by the army and handed over to the Police on December 4 with a cache of sophisticated arms and ammunition.
No charges have been laid against them for possession of the computer, which reportedly has the capability to intercept telephone calls from landlines or from cell phones. Woolford pointed out the Wireless Telegraphy Act No 31 even though it relates to telegrams, provides that if “a message is received contrary to these Regulations or the Act or to conditions of a licence the licensee shall not make known its contents, its origin, its destination, its existence, or the fact of its receipt, to any person other than a duly authorised officer of the Government and the licensee shall not reproduce in writing, copy, or make use of such message or allow the same to be reproduced, copied, or made use of.”
He said too that the Telecommunications Act at Section 53 provides, subject to certain provisions, “that no information with respect to any business that has been obtained or where it relates to the private affairs of an individual shall be disclosed, save with their consent, during the lifetime of that individual or the person at the time in charge of the business.”
---------------------
Confiscated laptop being used for intended purpose -Gajraj
Stabroek News
February 16, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on Confiscated laptop
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj yesterday confirmed that the laptop computer seized from the three men arrested on December 4, at Good Hope East Coast Demerara, was in the custody of the security forces. He said that he expected that it was being used for its intended purpose.
He told Stabroek News too that the police were conducting investigations into the activities and were any illegality to be uncovered they would be prosecuted, no matter who was involved.
Gajraj also questioned the existence of a "phantom squad" saying that there was as yet no evidence linking the murders in one area with those in another but conceded that there were persons capitalising on the present situation to carry out their own nefarious activities.
Gajraj stressed that as Minister, he does not condone the creation of a "Frankenstein" to deal with the present upsurge of violent crimes as the ends did not justify the means.
The Minister dismissed reports that he had instructed that the three men not be charged, saying he had insisted that a proper investigation be done before the men were placed before the courts. He insisted that this was not the time as in the past when the security forces "fitted" people for offences for which they were before the courts.
Asked if enquiries were being conducted as to how the computer came to be in the possession of the persons from whom it was seized, Gajraj observed that if its possession was not illegal then there was no need for an inquiry. He also observed when told that information on the Internet suggests that the software installed in the computer was for sale only to governments and security forces then the inquiries should be directed to those firms listed on the website.
In relation to the vehicle in which the arms and ammunition were found and for which the men had been charged, he said that once it was properly imported then legally it should be returned to its owner.
----------------------
Police keeping Good Hope arms cache
-bulletproof pickup returned
Stabroek News
August 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The police have retained in their possession all of the weapons in the Good Hope arms case citing that they were illegally obtained, a senior police source has said.
High-powered arms were found in a bulletproof pick-up vehicle on December 3, last year leading to the arrest and prosecution of three men, Shaheed Khan, Haroon Yahya and policeman Sean Belfield.
The men were recently freed of the unlawful possession charges. However, a senior police source told Stabroek News that the police had retained possession of the weapons since by virtue of the fact that they were unlawful, no one had any claim to them and they would remain in the custody of the force. The serial numbers on nearly all the weapons had been filed off.
Among the items in the vehicle were two assault rifles fitted with telescopic lenses, a 12-gauge pump-action rifle, an Uzi submachine gun, two Glock pistols as well as other handguns, a laptop computer capable of intercepting cellular calls and a plan of the city, two bulletproof vests, two camouflage caps and two helmets as well as a large quantity of ammunition of varying calibre.
The three men were intercepted by a Guyana Defence Force (GDF) patrol in the Good Hope Housing Scheme, East Coast Demerara on the night of Wednesday December 3, while allegedly standing in proximity to a blue Ford pick-up, where the weapons were found.
The pick-up, which was fitted with half-inch thick bulletproof windows was impounded by Police after the men were detained and lodged at Criminal Investigations Department (CID) headquarters, Eve Leary.
The laptop computer was programmed to track the location of cellular phone users and a list of names and cellular telephone numbers of wanted men as well as other persons were retrieved by intelligence personnel.
The three men were later jointly charged for the possession of two M-16 rifles with 278 matching live rounds of 5.56 ammunition, and two 9mm pistols with 201 matching live rounds. Belfield, who is a constable attached to the Anti-Crime Task Force unit of the Guyana Police Force, was also separately charged with two summary offences for being in unlawful possession of a .40 Glock pistol and ten matching rounds of ammunition.
During the trial, no mention was ever made of the other weapons and the accessories which were found. Since the trial magistrate, Jerrick Stephney, found that no case was made out against the men, all three were acquitted of all the charges.
Last week a senior police officer told Stabroek News that although all of the items were initially confiscated, the accessories and the bulletproof vehicle were subsequently released.
A legal expert told Stabroek News that there was no law preventing a person from installing bulletproof features on a vehicle since the law allowed for a citizen to take measures to ensure his own safety.
Asked whether any of these weapons would be used by police, he pointed out that this was not usual practice and moreover, in the case of the assault rifles the GPF would need to acquire the special 5.56 mm ammunition, since the weapons were not the type used by the force.
The laptop computer was never lodged at the CID and the officer could not offer a clue as to its whereabouts, though he believed that “it is in some official’s custody.”
Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj had said that there was no law prohibiting the use of a computer to intercept telephone calls once the privacy of an individual’s home was not invaded.
------------------------
Good Hope trio gave conflicting accounts
-superintendent who questioned them tells court
Stabroek News
October 5, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on arms cache
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When interrogated on the morning after they were handed over by the Guyana Defence Force, Shaheed Khan, Sean Belfield and Haroon Yahya each gave different accounts to the police in relation to the weapons they are accused of possessing.
This was the testimony of Superintendent of Police Frederick Caesar on Friday, when the trial of the three men resumed before Principal Magistrate Jerrick Stephney at the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court.
Khan, Belfield and Yahya were intercepted by a Guyana Defence Force patrol at Good Hope on December 4 and are jointly charged for the unlawful possession of firearms and the unlawful possession of ammunition.
It is alleged that they were found in possession of two M-15 rifles with a quantity of matching live rounds of ammunition, and two 9mm pistols with a quantity of matching live rounds. Belfield, who is a constable attached to the Anti-Crime Task Force unit, is also separately charged with two summary offences, being in unlawful possession of a .40 Gluck pistol and 10 matching rounds of ammunition.
Led in evidence by Police Prosecutor, Corporal Edmond Cooper, Caesar said he had interrogated the men at Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters on the morning of December 5. He said he had been told that the men, who had a quantity of firearms and ammunition, were arrested by members of the GDF at Good Hope, sometime on the night of December 4.
Caesar said he had cautioned each of the men, advising them that any information they divulged could be used as evidence at criminal proceedings.
“The number one accused, Khan, said the firearms were acquired from Franco Rodrigues... Belfield said, er, replied, [that the] firearms were for protection [and] Yahya replied, he doesn’t know about firearms and ammunition, but he is a licensed holder of a shotgun and a revolver, which the army took possession of...”
Caesar said after further inquiries were made the three were subsequently charged with the offences presently before the court.
During his cross-examination, attorney Glen Hanoman, appearing for Khan, asked Caesar if he had learnt during the course of his investigation that his client was a licensed firearm holder.
“Yes, sir.”
“And in fact, he was licensed to own and operate more than one firearm?”
“That is correct, sir.”
“Now, [during] your investigation, did it come to your attention that the firearms of [Khan] were among the lot which was in custody?”
“I can’t recall.”
“In other words, you can’t deny his firearms were part of those items?”
“No, I can’t deny.”
“I am suggesting to you that when you spoke with or questioned the number one defendant, you did not show him any firearm.”
“That is correct sir, I did not show him any firearm.”
“So, when you say [Khan] replied to you, you were not sure what firearms he was referring to when he said he purchased a firearm from Franco Rodrigues?”
“I assumed...”
“You were not conclusively informed as to what firearms he referred to? Did you clarify what firearms he referred to?”
“I did not.”
“Then, you are not in a position to deny, when he replied, he may have been referring to his personal firearms?” “Could be. It could be his personal firearms he was referring to... which were among the lot.”
“As a matter of fact, you are not in a position to say whether the firearms in this case were ever shown to the defendants?” “I would not be able to say.”
Hanoman then changed his line of questioning, asking Caesar if he could explain why the men were not immediately handed over to police when they were initially intercepted. Caesar replied he could not and Hanoman then suggested to him that it was proper procedure for the Guyana Defence Force to immediately hand over persons who were detained.
“I would say it depends on the circumstances.”
“In a case like this one, in your view, as a Senior Superintendent of Police, would you agree that the army should have handed over the men immediately and not a couple of hours afterward?”
“I would agree that the army should hand over men to the police in the shortest possible time.”
“What time were the [accused] handed over to you?
“I can’t say exactly, but very early in the morning. Maybe two, two-thirty, possibly quarter to three.”
“And hasn’t it come to your knowledge that the men were detained at about 10:30 on the previous night?”
“Yes. That is my information.” “...And was any reason advanced to you why the army kept them for about four hours?”
“No, sir.”
After Hanoman completed his examination, Belfield’s attorney Vic Puran asked Caesar if he had sought to clarify Belfield’s statement. The witness said no, adding that it would be correct to say he did not know to which firearms Belfield had made reference.
Under cross-examination, Caesar said ranks of the Police Force, once given the authority from an officer who possesses the rank of Corporal or above, may carry firearms or ammunition without a licence.
“Now, at the time of this matter, Mr. Belfield was a serving member of the Guyana Police Force?”
“Yes, sir.”
“As a matter of fact, up to the 3rd of December, 2002, Mr. Belfield was in a unit of the police force that constituted the spear against banditry? His unit carried the brunt of the attack against the bandits.”
“That is absolutely correct, sir.”
In response to a query by Puran about how many policemen had been killed by this time, the witness conceded that it would be correct to say several.
“You will agree with me that the lives of members of Belfield’s unit were at greater risk than other members of the Police Force?”
“Yes, sir.”
“I am suggesting to you, sir, that Mr. Belfield’s unit had about ten persons who had the capacity to authorise Belfield to carry firearms and ammunition, without a licence.”
“There were several persons in his unit.”
Puran after this answer completed his cross-examination. Yahya, who was unrepresented at Friday’s hearing declined cross-examination of Caesar, while the Police Prosecutor declined re-examination.
--------------------
Mystery surrounds whereabouts of Good Hope laptop
Stabroek News
February 15, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links: Articles on confiscated laptop
Letters Menu Archival Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whereabouts of the laptop computer taken from three men with a quantity of arms and ammunition at Good Hope Housing Scheme, East Coast Demerara in December 2002 is now shrouded in mystery.
The army says that it was turned over to the police, but the police seem not to know of its whereabouts.
The laptop is capable of intercepting and tracing telephone calls made from a landline or a cellular phone and the software is reportedly only sold to governments. At the time, Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj said the use of the instrument did not breach any of the laws of Guyana.
The men - Roger Khan, Sean Benfield and Haroon Yahya - were arrested by a Guyana Defence Force patrol and turned over to the police together with the laptop computer, the arms and ammunition and the vehicle in which the arms were found. A magistrate's court acquitted the three men of all the charges laid against them by the police including possession of unlicensed arms.
A senior army officer assured Stabroek News that the computer was never returned to the army. Stabroek News was unable to contact either Gajraj or outgoing commissioner of police (ag) Floyd McDonald for a comment on the issue. However, a senior police officer told Stabroek News that the computer is not with the police but could not say in whose possession it is now.
The officer said the police were advised to return the vehicle to the men, but that the weapons were unlicensed and were therefore being confiscated by the police, as well as the ammunition and other components.
The vehicle was equipped with bullet-proof windows and its body was also reinforced. Enquiries at the time to the Customs and Trade Administration and the police failed to elicit the identity of the person who imported it.
News of the arrest of the three men, one of whom was an active-duty policeman fuelled suspicion of the existence of a phantom gang, which was responsible for the deaths of a number of persons, some of whom were wanted by the police, and about which the police disclaimed any involvement.