Fatal shooting was ‘no accident’, says crown

(CNS): A jury of six men and six women have been asked to find both Justin Kyle Jackson and Eric Brian Williams Soto guilty of murdering Harry Elliott. As Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Candida James-Malcolm gave her closing speech to jurors on Monday, she said the loaded gun that Jackson took to the numbers shop on School Lane last July was the “harbinger of the tragedy that was to come”.

As she summarised the crown’s case against both men, who are charged jointly with possession of an unlicensed firearm and murder, the senior prosecutor said the killing was no accident, and both men were responsible for Elliott’s death.

She pointed out that the two men had made a decision to rob the numbers shop armed with a loaded gun. They had planned it, gone there together, and during the execution of the crime, they shot Elliott. While it may have been Jackson who pulled the trigger, Soto was equally culpable, she said.

“There is no escaping these facts,” James-Malclom said, maintaining that the men were motivated by greed and were willing to “use violence to achieve the ends”. “Mr Harry’s death” was the “irrecoverable consequence” of their robbery plan, she told the jury.

She reminded them what happened by playing CCTV footage of the incident, which is a key piece of evidence in the trial. She said it was rare that a jury would get to see the crime on CCTV, and the 25 seconds of footage was the essence of the case.

She noted how Jackson pulled the handgun from the waist of his trousers, racked the weapon and then stepped into the room. With his arm raised, he stepped back, and then the gun fired before Jackson and Soto pulled open the door and made their getaway empty-handed.

Jackson’s defence attorney had suggested during her cross-examination of witnesses that this was not a murder because there had never been any intention to kill or harm anyone, and the fatal shot was an “accidental discharge”. But James-Malcolm said the intention was there as soon as Jackson pulled and racked that loaded weapon and pointed it into a small, crowded room.

She told the jurors that no evidence had been presented to the court that Jackson had accidentally fired the gun or that it had gone off on its own. Jackson did not take the stand to explain what had happened, and following his arrest, he did not answer any of the detective’s questions but exercised his right to silence.

“You are being asked to speculate that it might have been an accident that caused the gun to go off,” James-Malcolm said. She maintained it was obvious that if someone fires a gun into a small room with several people inside, even if they do not intend to kill anyone, they know they are likely to cause death or serious injury.

She stressed that Soto was not there by happenstance. Although he was behind Jackson and did not touch the gun, he was aware of that weapon, despite his denials, and was right there as Jackson pulled the weapon from his pants, he said. Once he agreed to commit the robbery with Jackson, he was equally responsible for Elliott’s death.

James-Malcom noted that Soto stayed with Jackson as they ran away until Caine Thomas, the getaway driver, picked them up. She said he went to Windsor Park and then helped clean up the car and throw away the clothes he had worn during the crime. At no time, she said, did he disengage himself from the offending.

She pointed out that he did not tell the truth to the police when he was arrested several months later and denied any knowledge at all of the killing. His version of events, given from the stand, belied belief, James-Malcolm said.

She told the jury that both Jackson and Soto’s “deliberate, dangerous actions were the cause of Mr Harry’s death” and the inevitable result of their plan to rob the numbers shop.

Prior to the start of the closing addresses on Monday, Justice Cheryll Richards, who is presiding over the trial, directed the jury on the law in this case. She explained that while the crown was alleging that this was murder, given the circumstances, it was still possible for the jury to find alternative verdicts. She explained they had the option, based on their consideration of all the evidence, to find that this was a case of manslaughter.

In Soto’s case, she said, if the jury was to find based on evidence that this was not a joint enterprise, they could find him not guilty of murder or manslaughter but return a verdict of accessory to either, depending on what verdict they reached in relation to Jackson.

The trial continues.