Coen Jackson (left), Ruel Johnson (right)
October 5 2018
Cultural Policy Advisor Ruel Johnson has found himself the subject of a police investigation over comments he made on Facebook about accused pedophile teacher Coen Jackson and his fiancée Tiffany Humphrey.
Jackson, was committed to stand trial at the High Court in May this year on a charge that allege he engaged in sexual activity with a child.
The post under which the comments were allegedly made had been created on September 16, 2018 by Ronald Austin Jr. and focused on Jackson being employed by a private school in the city with his trial still pending.
Based on statements given to the police by Jackson and Humphrey, which were seen by this newspaper, they have cited Johnson’s comments on the post as being in breach of Section 19(3) of the Cybercrime Act, which was passed in July. It states that a person commits an offence if the person uses a computer system to disseminate any information, statement or image, knowing the same to be false, that (a) causes damage to the reputation of another person; or (b) subjects another person to public ridicule, contempt, hatred or embarrassment.
Jackson, in his statement, alleged that Johnson, who is a witness in his upcoming trial, made several false claims against him in his comments on the post. “Ruel Johnson, who is a witness in a case against me before the High Court, would subsequently make several false claims on the said post, intended to impugn and cause irrevocable damage to my reputation, subject me to public ridicule, contempt, hatred and embarrassment,” the embattled teacher wrote. Stabroek News understands that the comments to which Jackson referred to had focused on his alleged interactions with purported victims and his teaching career at the Bishops’ High School.
Jackson would have also contended that though his matter is sub judice and Johnson is a witness, he (Johnson) continues to make public pronouncements about the case, whether directly or indirectly.
“It is my belief that his intention is to prejudice and sway the mind of the jury pool,” Jackson added.
Humphrey, meanwhile, has accused Johnson of attacking her character when she sought to correct the claims made on the Facebook post.
Johnson, when contacted, explained that on Tuesday morning, he received a call from an officer purporting to be from the Brickdam Police Station. The caller requested that he visit the station to respond to allegations made against him.
However, he claims the officer was unclear about the allegations being made against him and, as a result, he disregarded the request.
Further to this, Johnson said that he had proceeded on travels out of town on official duty when he received a call from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Social Cohesion, where he is employed, saying that officers had showed up at the office and requested to see him.
Subsequent to this, Johnson said he contacted the officer who had initially contacted him, at which point he was finally told that the allegations were made by Jackson and his fiancée. As a result, Johnson explained that he committed to visiting the police station to address the allegations when he returns from his trip.
Commenting directly on that which has been alleged by Jackson and Humphrey in their respective statements, Johnson said, “It is a very curious claim to make and my personal view is that Mr. Jackson is seeking to take advantage of a new and untested legislation and, two, if it is you have a strong defence, evidence should be in your favour….”
Responding to Jackson’s allegation that his public pronouncements are intended to prejudice and sway the mind of the jury pool, Johnson said, “By that regard, anybody who makes a comment, including Ronald Austin and whoever else has made any comment about him, is apparently trying to prejudice or is guilty of trying to sway the mind of the jury pool. It is a curious argument to make. In fact, any report that repeats any part of the official allegation for which he has been charged by the DPP would logically sway the mind of the jury pool.”
“Again, I am not sure what legislative error I am supposedly in breach of. Like I said, I haven’t seen it, but I am fully prepared for when I return to Georgetown to respond to it,” he added.