One of the alleged victims in former Speaker McKeeva Bush’s indecent assault trial repeatedly told authorities she did not feel his behaviour was criminal and did not want to be involved in a police investigation.
The victim – who gave evidence that Bush planted a ‘hickey’ which left teeth marks on her hand in an awkward exchange at a government function – testified that she believed it was an accident.
She added that she had raised the matter with senior government civil servants because she felt his behaviour was inappropriate.
But she confirmed that, from the outset, she had stated, “I do not feel it rises to the level of a crime and am not comfortable pursuing it as such.”
She said she had agreed to give a video statement, when asked by the police, in order to get her official account of events on the record amid a flurry of speculation.
“I wanted to make sure my version of what happened was actually recorded somewhere. People were making things up in every direction,” she said.
Under questioning from Bush’s attorney Sallie Bennett-Jenkins, KC, in court on Friday, she confirmed that she had told police that she felt harassed “by people asking how I am doing” and noted “they all seem to have an agenda of some kind”.
She was not asked to elaborate on those comments.
The witness’s video testimony, in which she indicated she believed Bush’s behaviour was “creepy” and inappropriate, had earlier been played to the court. She indicated she was more shocked and incredulous than anything else, but believed Bush’s ‘bite’ to be a drunken mistake and felt no ill-will towards him.
She confirmed that the first text she had sent about the incident, had read, “McKeeva bit me… by accident, but still”.
Under questioning from Bennett-Jenkins, she confirmed various statements she made to senior government officials in which she had indicated she would have contacted the police herself if she believed anything criminal had taken place.
She acknowledged being concerned about the then Speaker’s behaviour, but said her worry was related to the potential embarrassment to the government and the jurisdiction rather than any concern for herself. The incident took place at a function, held 13 Sept. 2022 at The Ritz-Carlton hotel, for the Caribbean Tourism Organization, with several regional leaders present.
She accepted the barrister’s contention that she had made clear from the outset that she believed the incident was an accident, adding, “That does not mean I thought it was appropriate.”
Bennett-Jenkins responded, “There is a world of difference between an action that is inappropriate and an action that is criminal isn’t there?” The witness agreed.
Victim’s husband takes the stand
The jury also heard, Friday, from the husband of the other complainant in the case. She gave evidence earlier in the trial that Bush had kissed her twice on the shoulder against her will.
The man had been at the event, but had not seen Bush’s actions. He testified that his wife had told him what happened and he had later read a story on a local website about a possible incident at the hotel.
He said he had messaged Bush the next day with a measured statement, indicating his behaviour was “uncalled for, inappropriate and deplorable”, and suggesting he apologise as a first step.
Bush replied, “What was it that I disrespected your wife for? Please tell me now.”
The man confirmed he had responded in a further text that Bush should remember having made “unwanted sexual advances to her, to the point where a police officer had to intervene”.
There was no further contact between the two men after that exchange, the jury heard.
Under cross-examination, he acknowledged he had not seen the incident himself and that he was basing his comments to Bush on what his wife had told him. He said they had been married for a decade and he had no reason to doubt her.
Statements were also read into evidence from several witnesses who were not required to attend in person.
One woman who was present during Bush’s alleged assault of the first complainant, indicated that she had not seen anything that she believed to be criminal.
She said Bush had hugged both her and the first complainant and appeared to be drunk. She had alerted a protocol officer because she was worried about a potentially embarrassing scene but she had not seen any incident that concerned her.
“I didn’t feel harassed in any way and I didn’t feel that I witnessed sexual harassment,” she said. It wasn’t clear if she was saying she had not seen the incident where Bush is alleged to have kissed the woman’s shoulder or that she saw it, but did not interpret it as sexual harassment.
Deputy governor heard early accounts
Statements were also read into evidence from Deputy Governor Franz Manderson and the chief officer in the Ministry of Tourism, Stran Bodden, who received some of the first official accounts of the matter.
Manderson’s statement said that he had indicated a “zero tolerance” approach within government for the behaviour described and indicated he would stand by both women if they chose to make a complaint.
He also confirmed he had received a “call from McKeeva Bush who wanted me to know that he did not behave inappropriately to any civil servant”, and suggested a witness for him to speak to.
Investigating officer faces questions
On Friday afternoon, while being cross-examined by Bennett-Jenkins, investigating officer Detective Inspector Dave Morrison agreed with her assertion that the woman who had given evidence earlier that day had never made a formal written-and-signed police statement about the incident, nor had ever consented to a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Crown prosecutor Charles Miskin, KC, interjected at that point, noting that a victim’s consent is not necessary for assault cases to be prosecuted. He also pointed out that there was also no written consent from the other complainant.
More than a month after the incident, Bennett-Jenkins pointed out, the woman had written to the investigating officers saying that she was not interested in pursuing the matter. In that email to police, the woman had also stated that, while she had initially been hesitant to be interviewed by the officers, she felt it was important to put her version of events on record in case they were needed in the future.
Bennett-Jenkins also questioned Morrison in relation to a WhatsApp message that the woman who claimed Bush bit her on the hand had sent to her boss shortly after leaving the cocktail reception.
She asked why police had made no effort, until earlier this week – 17 months after the alleged offence – to seek that WhatsApp message, stating that, as it would have been a contemporaneous account of events, it should surely have been relevant to the RCIPS investigation.
“So this account, given within 15 minutes of the event, that this was an accident, you just left?” the defence lawyer asked Morrison.
The officer responded that it was not sought initially because the woman was not considered part of the investigation. She only became so after charges were laid against Bush on 7 March 2023, he noted.
When he told her in March that Bush had been arrested and charged, she had been “surprised that charges had been made in respect to her”, he said, but that she would leave the matter in the hands of the Legal Department.
The police officer also addressed the day Bush was arrested and charged in March last year, at the police detention centre in George Town.
Under questioning from Miskin, Morrison confirmed to the court that, in response to each of the four charges, Bush had replied each time, “The truth will come out in this matter,” and did not say anything else in relation to the alleged offences.
Bush faces two charges of indecent assault and two alternate charges of common assault. He has denied all charges.
The case resumes Monday.
Additional reporting by Norma Connolly.
Related Videos
