Court believes Maitland used police experience in attempt to conceal evidence

High Court judge Justice Vinette Graham on Thursday accused Constable Noel Maitland of using his nine years of experience in the police force to assist him in covering up and getting rid of possible evidence in the murder of his girlfriend.

The lawman, who was yesterday denied bail in the Home Circuit Court, was hauled into custody on July 27 in relation to the disappearance and murder of his girlfriend, Donna-Lee Donaldson. He was later charged with murder and preventing the lawful burial of a corpse.

The 24-year-old social-media personality was reported missing on July 13, two days after she was last seen at Maitland’s apartment in St Andrew.

During the bail application earlier this month, the prosecution painted the defendant as a calculated killer, who plotted to cover up the murder in a case which has sparked broad public interest.

In rejecting the bail application on Thursday, Justice Graham-Allen recalled that the defendant’s lawyer, Christopher Townsend, had pointed out that the accused policeman had given the country nine years of service through the Jamaica Constabulary Force.

But, she said, “The court is of the view that the accused has used these years of service to aid him in his conduct and action in his attempt to conceal, dispose of possible evidence, and interfere with witnesses.”

The judge further explained that the court is convinced that if granted bail, Maitland could abscond, interfere with witnesses, obstruct the investigation, or reoffend.

“The prosecution has shown the alleged interference with potential witnesses.

“The prosecution has detailed the circumstances leading to the alleged murder of the deceased. Further, the prosecution has shown to the court the alleged conduct and action of the accused prior to his arrest, attempting to dispose of, and, in fact, dispose of and conceal potential evidence in this case, aided by other persons who are not before this court,” she said.

Graham-Allen underscored that there were no conditions that could be implemented by the court to prevent those risks.

The judge added that she also considered that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence.

“What that means is that there is no ‘I see’ witness that will come to testify that they saw the defendant kill the deceased,” Justice Graham-Allen said.

But at the same time, she cited a Court of Appeal ruling, which emphasised that a defendant can be convicted purely on circumstantial evidence and that murder can be proven regardless of whether the victim’s body has been found.

However, she said the appellate court notes that “the circumstantial evidence must be so cogent and compelling to convince the jury that no rational hypothesis other than murder can be accounted for”.

In the meantime, a plea and case-management hearing was scheduled for February 9 next year.

The judge advised both the prosecution and the defence to have discussions to settle disclosure and also to determine what statements could be agreed upon as well as the mode and length of the trial.

Attorneys-at-law Kaysian Kennedy-Sherman and Sanjay Smith also represent Maitland.