No evidence Jackson meant to kill, argues lawyer

(CNS): Justin Kyle Jackson (24) did not intend to kill Harry Elliott (63) when he shot him last summer, his attorney argued when she addressed the jury on his behalf on Tuesday. Sallie Bennett-Jenkins KC said the prosecution had failed to prove that her client was guilty of murder and failed to consider the evidence that it was a case of accidental discharge, and in such cases there is no criminal liability.

Jackson is accused of murdering Harry Elliott when he shot him in the head at close range during an attempted robbery, perpetrated by him and Eric Brian Williams Soto, at a gambling shop on School Road in George Town in the summer of 2022.

Jackson has never given his side of the story either to the police after his arrest or in court during the trial. However, his lawyer told the jury that the tragedy did not allow the crown to build a case on speculation and they should not disregard the details, as she suggested that there was no malice or forethought surrounding Elliott’s death.

She said there was evidence that Jackson had not intended to kill, and suggested that he did not believe the gun he carried into the shop that fatal night was loaded. She also implied that there was a fourth mystery man in the car who took Jackson and Soto to the scene of the crime, and that he and the driver, Caine Thomas, pressured the two accused men to commit the robbery.

When Soto had given evidence, he had told the court that there was no fourth man in the car and no one had pressured him or Jackson to do the robbery. However, Bennett-Jenkins said that he lied about this because he was afraid.

As she offered jurors an alternative narrative to the crown’s case, she said that in order to find Jackson guilty they would have to dismiss the evidence that pointed to the shooting being an accident. She said the CCTV did not show Jackson pulling out the gun and pointing it into the crowded room before he stepped back and fired it; instead, it showed that, as he pulled out the gun and opened the door to the gambling shop, he had immediately stepped back, collided with Soto, stumbled on a mat, and the gun had gone off.

She argued that because the crown had not recovered the gun, they could not prove that it was in working order, even though it had fired the shot that killed Elliott.

Jackson had cranked the gun as he pulled it from his waist and headed into the gambling shop, declaring, “This is a robbery!” But Bennett-Jenkins said there was no intent to kill. As he was confronted by Elliott standing in the doorway, he had retreated, withdrawing from the robbery, but the small space, an unstable floor and a faulty gun had resulted in the weapon going off. She said Jackson had buckled from the unexpected recoil from the gun, implying that he wasn’t prepared for it to fire.

She also pointed to the testimony of Keron Cupid, the former police officer and owner of the gambling shop, who had suggested that Jackson had looked surprised and confused. He had said that the robber had a “bewildered look on his face”, which Bennett-Jenkins said also pointed to Jackson’s innocence, as she asked the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

When Charles Miskin KC presented a summary of Eric Soto’s case, he said it was quite simple: the jury had to decide whether or not he was aware that Jackson had a gun when they entered the store. “Can you be sure he knew there was a loaded gun involved?” he asked the jury, as he reviewed the evidence Soto had given under oath when he opted to take the stand.

Miskin stressed that they must be sure he knew the gun was loaded to find him guilty, suggesting that Soto could see very little from his vantage point, with Jackson’s back towards Soto as he pulled out the gun, as shown on the CCTV footage.

He argued that Soto had never been in trouble with the law before. Although he was persuaded to engage in the robbery at a numbers shop to get some extra cash, believing that they would not get caught, it was a big step to go from never having offended to murder.

Mishkin said that Soto was telling the truth and had made a decision he was not going to lie for Jackson. “That’s all there is to it,” he said as he asked the jury to return a not guilty verdict on both the murder charge and the possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Neither of the defendants have been charged with attempted robbery, nor have they made formal pleas to that crime, but they have by implication admitted that they had intended to rob the illegal gambling shop.

The options open to the jury include finding both men guilty of murder and the possession of an unlawful gun as a result of a joint enterprise, or both guilty of manslaughter as an alternative. They are also entitled to consider whether Soto is guilty of accessory to murder or manslaughter.

Justice Cheryll Richards was expected to continue with her directions and a summary of the evidence on Wednesday.