KINGSTOWN, St Vincent (CMC):
A magistrate court will decide on December 13, whether school teacher, Adriana King, should be made to answer a charge brought against her in 2021, alleging that she blocked Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves from gaining access to the Parliament building.
But her lead defence lawyer, Kay Bacchus-Baptiste, has informed the court that she would apply to have Gonsalves as well as acting Commissioner of Police, Enville Williams, summoned as witnesses, if the prosecutor did not intend to call them.
Bacchus-Baptiste said this was based on the charge, which the prosecution has sought to amend for a third time since it was brought in August 2021, the court might need to set aside a special date when Gonsalves and Williams could be present to complete the trial in one day.
The lawyer said the prosecution had indicated that it intends to call three witnesses, but said that it made no sense to start the trial and not have it completed the same day.
“If the court sees it fit to grant the application, I am asking that it can be put on a Wednesday because that is traffic court and I would be available on a Wednesday,” said Inspector Renrick Cato, the prosecutor.
POLITICAL MATTER
Bacchus-Baptiste said that based on the disclosure, the prosecution was only relying on one witness.
“This is a political matter and I don’t understand how the prosecutor can do the case without calling the prime minister,” she said, adding that she would also need a copy of the charge since she was not certain now of the charge given the changes.
“What was served on her –” the defence counsel was saying when the magistrate informed her that some changes had been made to the charge.
Cato has asked the court to amend the charge to read that on August 5, 2021, King, “being a stranger, with intent to commit an offence, with intent to obstruct Mr Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, a member of the House of Assembly from coming to the precincts of the House of Assembly did an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence”.
Bacchus-Baptiste told the court that her client had been placed on half pay since the charge was laid against her and two years later the prosecution was asking for “a third amendment to this political charge”.
The magistrate then said to both the prosecution and the defence that he was seeking “some guidance” as to what is the maximum sentence for the offence.
Bacchus-Baptiste said it is a fine of EC$1,500 (One EC dollar=US$0.37 cents) and imprisonment for six months, with the magistrate asking “What do the guidelines say on this matter being before the court this long?”
The defence counsel said the guidelines say that six months is the outside limit by which such a charge should be disposed of.
“It is an abuse of process to come two years later to bring this charge and it should be struck out for abuse of process and delay based on the guideline of the chief justice. And I am making that application this morning,” Bacchus-Baptiste said.
Cato, however, noted that there had been several adjournments, not at all of which had been the fault of the prosecution.
“Counsel sent several letters to this court asking for adjournments …,” Cato said, noting that he had applied for an amendment to the charge based on a section of the law that gives the prosecution that authority.
But Bacchus-Baptiste said she did not understand the prosecutor’s application, adding that the Court of Appeal has said that it does not matter the reason, such a matter should not be before the court for so long.