stluciatimes, caribbean, caribbeannews, stlucia, saintlucia, stlucianews, saintlucianews, stluciatimesnews, saintluciatimes, stlucianewsonline, saintlucianewsonline, st lucia news online, stlucia news online, loop news, loopnewsbarbados

Stolen Ammunition Still Missing, Although M16 Recovered

The ammunition that was taken along with the M16 rifle stolen from a police station last month remains missing, a senior officer revealed as he also addressed allegations that officers have sold guns and ammunition to criminals.

At a police press conference on Tuesday, alongside Commissioner of Police Verne Garde and other senior officers, Superintendent Luke Defreitas disclosed that all efforts are being made to locate the more than 100 rounds of ammunition that also went missing when the powerful rifle was stolen from the Gros Islet Police Station armoury on February 15.

“We’re still working in that regard,” he said. “However, along similar lines that we were able to recover the firearm, I am hoping that in short order, we make some progress with the recovery of the ammunition.”

No details about the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the rifle have been provided. In a press statement following Sergeant Ricardo Jerson Charlemagne being charged in connection with the gun theft, the Royal Saint Lucia Police Force (RSLPF) only stated that the weapon was retrieved “as part of an intensive investigation conducted by one of our specialised units.” It indicated that due to the legal proceedings against Charlemagne, further details regarding the recovery could not be disclosed.

On Tuesday, Defreitas addressed persistent claims that police officers have been selling firearms and ammunition to criminals. While such allegations have surfaced repeatedly over the years, the senior officer who heads the Central Division asserted that no concrete evidence has ever emerged to substantiate these claims in his 35-year tenure with the RSLPF.

“These are questions or issues that have come up from time to time…. I’ve heard these allegations from the time I would have entered the service. As to whether there has ever been sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation along those lines, that has been very far and few between,” he said.

“However, I have been in investigations, and also the head of the investigations unit for a very long time, and I have never seen a situation where there was emerging evidence, or concrete evidence for such situations that was not dealt with.”

Regarding the matter in which Sergeant Charlemagne, a veteran officer, was implicated, Superintendent Defreitas said the evidence was sufficient to charge him in connection with the missing firearm.

He explained that the disappearance of the firearm had been discovered through the “meticulous” logging and auditing process used by the police force to track weapons and ammunition on the same day it went missing.

Defreitas said every police officer who had access to the armoury within a particular period was questioned and would have been “looked at as a suspect” before any charges were laid.

According to the superintendent, audits are conducted daily, with officers on eight-hour shifts required to hand over and take over weapons under the supervision of a senior officer. In some instances, checks are conducted every 24 hours. Additionally, inspectors and assistant superintendents in charge of divisions perform fortnightly checks, while higher-ranking officials may conduct monthly audits. These audits are then submitted to the Commissioner of Police as part of the RSLPF’s “monthly returns”.

“So there are very meticulous checks and balances in terms of these firearms,” Superintendent Defreitas insisted.

Any third-party or user posts, comments, replies, and third-party entries published on the St. Lucia Times website (https://stluciatimes.com) in no way convey the thoughts, sentiments or intents of St. Lucia Times, the author of any said article or post, the website, or the business. St. Lucia Times is not responsible or liable for, and does not endorse, any comments or replies posted by users and third parties, and especially the content therein and whether it is accurate. St. Lucia Times reserves the right to remove, screen, edit, or reinstate content posted by third parties on this website or any other online platform owned by St. Lucia Times (this includes the said user posts, comments, replies, and third-party entries) at our sole discretion for any reason or no reason, and without notice to you, or any user. For example, we may remove a comment or reply if we believe it violates any part of the St. Lucia Criminal Code, particularly section 313 which pertains to the offence of Libel. Except as required by law, we have no obligation to retain or provide you with copies of any content you as a user may post, or any other post or reply made by any third-party on this website or any other online platform owned by St. Lucia Times. All third-parties and users agree that this is a public forum, and we do not guarantee any confidentiality with respect to any content you as a user may post, or any other post or reply made by any third-party on this website. Any posts made and information disclosed by you is at your own risk.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

TRENDING

Subscribe to our St. Lucia Times Newsletter

Get our headlines emailed to you every day.

Subscribe to our St. Lucia Times Newsletter

Get our headlines emailed to you every day.

Share via
Send this to a friend