regard was falsely premised, and indeed I did not understand any police officer who gave evidence in the Inquest to seriously contend otherwise. Certainly, there was no understanding either between SAPOL and GSL, between GSL and DCS or between SAPOL and DCS that this document would be furnished to DCS. In the event, the ARC did not receive the document when Mr Gill was processed there and indeed none of the information contained within it was ever brought to the attention of DCS or the Prison Health Service. GSL requirements and obligations As indicated earlier, in the context of which we speak here, responsibility was GSL’s to escort the prisoner from the Elizabeth police cells to the Elizabeth Magistrates Court holding cells and to keep the prisoner in the holding cells pending his appearance in Court. They also undertook some responsibility for security within Court. Once the prisoner was remanded in custody, it was responsibility to GSL’s convey the prisoner to the relevant custodial institution, usually the ARC. That is what happened in Mr case. The procedure normally was that the prisoner Gill’s would be taken from the Elizabeth police cells by the GSL escort or escorts shortly before the Court appearance so that the prisoner did not have to remain in prisoner’s the Court holding cells for an extended period of time. There was some evidence that was suggestive of the fact that both Elizabeth police station cell staff and GSL officers were under some pressure from the Court to quickly convey prisoners from police cells to the Court. The expectation and indeed obligation that was relevant for purposes was that GSL’s they would take custody of the prisoner and take possession of such items as the property. Specifically, they were under an obligation to take a copy of the prisoner’s PD331 and any documentation that might be appended to that. The appended documentation might consist of a medical report or other relevant letter. In Mr Gill’s case it would have appended the letter from Dr Shankar of the LMH which stated that Mr Gill was fit for police interview. There was some debate during the course of the Inquest as to whether or not GSL had an obligation regarding the PD331 that extended beyond merely receiving it. It was suggested that GSL were under an obligation to ensure that the relevant SAPOL officers completed the document at the time the particular prisoner was taken into custody by them.
regard was falsely premised, and indeed I did not understand any police officer who gave evidence in the Inquest to seriously contend otherwise. Certainly, there was no understanding either between SAPOL and GSL, between GSL and DCS or between SAPOL and DCS that this document would be furnished to DCS. In the event, the ARC did not receive the document when Mr Gill was processed there and indeed none of the information contained within it was ever brought to the attention of DCS or the Prison Health Service. GSL requirements and obligations As indicated earlier, in the context of which we speak here, GSL’s responsibility was to escort the prisoner from the Elizabeth police cells to the Elizabeth Magistrates Court holding cells and to keep the prisoner in the holding cells pending his appearance in Court. They also undertook some responsibility for security within Court. Once the prisoner was remanded in custody, it was GSL’s responsibility to convey the prisoner to the relevant custodial institution, usually the ARC. That is what happened in Mr Gill’s case. The procedure normally was that the prisoner would be taken from the Elizabeth police cells by the GSL escort or escorts shortly before the prisoner’s Court appearance so that the prisoner did not have to remain in the Court holding cells for an extended period of time. There was some evidence that was suggestive of the fact that both Elizabeth police station cell staff and GSL officers were under some pressure from the Court to quickly convey prisoners from police cells to the Court. The expectation and indeed obligation that was relevant for GSL’s purposes was that they would take custody of the prisoner and take possession of such items as the prisoner’s property. Specifically, they were under an obligation to take a copy of the PD331 and any documentation that might be appended to that. The appended documentation might consist of a medical report or other relevant letter. In Mr Gill’s case it would have appended the letter from Dr Shankar of the LMH which stated that Mr Gill was fit for police interview. There was some debate during the course of the Inquest as to whether or not GSL had an obligation regarding the PD331 that extended beyond merely receiving it. It was suggested that GSL were under an obligation to ensure that the relevant SAPOL officers completed the document at the time the particular prisoner was taken into custody by them.
GILL%20Andrew%20Stephen%20and%20SCHAER%20Simon.docx