One of the four police officers who is on remand in connection with the death of Joshua Etienne has been granted bail in the sum of $150,000 by High Court Judge Errol Thomas.
Orlan Vigille appeared in court on Tuesday.
He, along with Martin Seaman, Jemma Louis and Devin Challenger were charged with the murder of Etienne. Another officer, Hayden Morgan, was granted bail after his charge was reduced to manslaughter about two weeks ago.
In his decision Thomas, after hearing arguments from Zena Moore Dyer and Dawn Yearwood Stewart said that he is satisfied that the evidence thus far is not linking Vigille to the crime.
Vigille is to surrender all his travel documents and is to reside in Portsmouth and report to the Colihaut police station four times a week. He was also ordered to surrender all travel documents.
It is reported that on the day of the incident Vigille was merely a driver carrying out instructions.
No decision has been arrived on Seaman, Challenger and Louis.
Etienne was found dead in police cells in Portsmouth on July 4, 2014, one day after he was arrested for alleged ammunition possession.
An autopsy on his body revealed serious injuries including several broken bones and a punctured organ, among others.
Ok………If he has proven that he is deserving of the opportunity of bail then fine! But I am very, very surprised at the suggestion here that the judge granted bail because he is of the impression that the evidence does not seem to suggest his guilt or involvement in the crime committed. Isn’t that a decision to be taken by a jury once chosen and once the due process is completed? If the judge did in fact suggest that this is his feeling, why should he be expressing this feeling as part of his decision regarding a bail application? Those utterances should be left to the jury in their deliberations and as part of their decision making. If a judge does in fact suggest ‘that he is satisfied that the evidence thus far is not linking Vigille to the crime’ does that not compromise the case from the start?