The High Court of Antigua and Barbuda has acquitted Samuel “Tapa” Livingstone, dismissing a 2019 shooting charge due to glaring inconsistencies in witness testimonies. Justice Tunde Bakre delivered the decision on February 18, 2025, stating that the prosecution’s evidence was too contradictory to support a conviction.

The prosecution was required to prove that Livingstone shot at his alleged target Geneal Francis with intent to maim, disfigure or disable its alleged target. But after hearing days of arguments, Justice Bakre upheld a no case submission, citing insufficient and contradictory evidence presented by the prosecution. “These inconsistencies are many and they vary in degrees,” Bakre said in his ruling.

The case centered on allegations that on February 7, 2019, in Potters, Livingstone fired two shots at Francis from outside Francis’s residence. The prosecution’s case relied on multiple witnesses, including Francis, police officers, and forensic experts. However, discrepancies emerged regarding the incident’s date, the exact location of the shooting, and the retrieval site of the alleged bullet.

The Incident and Conflicting Accounts

Francis recounted an encounter that began with harassment while walking his dog and escalated when Livingstone reportedly appeared at his window, brandishing a firearm and firing two shots. Yet, discrepancies emerged almost immediately. For instance, while the offence particulars stated the incident occurred on February 7, 2019, the complainant insisted it took place on February 10—a date he linked indelibly to his grandmother’s birthday.

Further complicating matters, key police officers involved in the investigation offered conflicting accounts regarding the time, location, and even the precise date of the shooting. Statements from officers vacillated between February 6 and 7, while other officers differed on whether the bullet was recovered from the front or back of the complainant’s house. Even photographic evidence presented by an officer was challenged by Francis’ own narrative regarding the condition and location of the damaged property.

At the conclusion of the prosecution’s presentation, Livingstone’s attorney Andrew O’Kola argued that the evidence was too inconsistent to warrant a jury deliberation. Justice Bakre concurred with the defence, stating that the prosecution’s case was undermined by significant contradictions and lacked the reliability necessary for a conviction. He added that no reasonable jury, when properly directed, could convict on its basis.

Following the ruling, O’Kola remarked “Justice has prevailed today. This case was built on unreliable and inconsistent evidence, and it would have been a grave miscarriage of justice to ask the defendant to answer a case that simply did not exist.”

He further highlighted the prosecution’s duty to present credible cases that meet legal standards, noting that the significant contradictions in this instance made the case unsustainable.