Got TIPS or BREAKING NEWS? Please call 1-284-442-8000 or Email ALL news to:newsvino@outlook.com; ads call 1-284-440-6666

Letter to the Editor: Did Alred Frett get a fair trial?

Jefferson J. Knight. Photo: Provided
By Jefferson J. Knight

It is my Fundamental Right and Freedom, as a citizen of the VI to Exercise freedom of my Religion, under section 21, on a news site in the Democratic British Overseas Territory of the Virgin Islands.

I am a proud Catholic, who received the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation [“In the faith of the Catholic Church”] of St. Williams Catholic Church of Road Town Tortola, VI.

With that faith and Freedom in the VI under the authority of the VI Constitution, I call on the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive me for my earthly sins.

Penitential Act (A) The Confiteor of the Catholic Faith: Give me strength:-

[“I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers, and sisters that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do (Through-my-fault, Through-my-fault, Through my most Grievous Fault; Therefore, I ask Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and to you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God”]

With my faith and the power of the Holy Spirit, I will REPEL all the Evil Forces, who wish Evil upon me for Exercising my Constitutional Rights, in a Democratic VI.

Did Alred C. Frett get a FAIR TRIAL, pursuant to section 16 of the V.I Constitution?

Breaking NewsAlred Frett in Hot Water for Publication on VINO. Is it lawful Hot Water?

On Sunday August 18, 2013, I read on the news in the VI that a citizen of Her Majesty’s Territory of the VI, Mr Alred Frett appeared before a Magistrate in the VI, for an  “ALLEGED” offence, created pursuant to the Provisions of section 94(1)(G) of the VI Criminal Code:

I wish to give my blogging-views on the matter: This is my Blog:-

The Criminal Code of 1997 is a Statutory Legislation, which defines and Criminalized many offences in the Democratic British Overseas Territory of the VI.

The VI Law:

Offences relating to Judicial Proceedings:-

Section 94(1) of the Criminal Code states [“A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he, (G) while a Judicial Proceeding is pending, makes use of any speech or writing misrepresenting such proceeding or capable of Prejudicing and person in favour of or against any parties to such proceedings; or calculated to lower the authority of any person before whom the proceeding is to be held”]

The Facts:

It is alleged that Mr.Alred Frett, while exercising his Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, guaranteed to him, under section 23 of the VI Constitution Order of 2007, he MAY have committed an offence in the process.

The VI Constitution:

Section 23(1) states [“No person shall be hindered in the Enjoyment of his or her freedom of Expression-

(2) A person’s freedom of expression include freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive information and ideas without interference, freedom to disseminate information and ideas without interference (whether to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his or her correspondence or other means of communication”]

Note:

Notwithstanding, that a person has these Rights under section 23, there are provisions in 23(3)(b) which declares amongst other things that in exercising these Rights, citizens/residents must be mindful of the Rights of others and the protection of persons before the court and the protection of information heard in court: Good.

So in the process of exercising his Rights, Mr Frett is alleged to have committed a Criminal Offence, under section 94(1)(G) of the Criminal Code, of 1997: GOOD!

How does a citizen/resident appear before a Summary Criminal Court, under the VI Justice System pursuant to Statutory Laws and under the Constitution of 2007?

The Law:

Part III Section 21, of the Police Act, Chapter 165 of the VI Statutory Laws, states

[“The general duties of every member of the Force- RVIPF are-

(a)    To preserve the peace, prevent and detect crimes and other breaches of the law

(c)    To SUMMON before a Magistrate and to PROSECUTE-

(ii) Persons who he Reasonably suspects of having Committed an OFFENCE or may be CHARGED with having Committed ANY OFFENCE”]

What happens after the Police CHARGE a citizen with a Criminal Offence?

Section 30 of the Police Act states:-

[“Where-(a) A member of the force RVIPF lays an INFORMATION or makes a Complaint against ANY PERSON before a Magistrate; or

(b) A person alleged to have committed an OFFENCE is apprehended and brought before a Magistrate, ANY other member of the force has the same privileges as to address the Magistrate who is TRYING or INQUIRING into the Information, Complaint or CHARGE, as the case maybe, and to examine the WITNESSES giving Evidence as has the member of the force in whose name the information, complaint or CHARGE is laid, made or brought”]

What is the ROLE of a Magistrate in His or Her Criminal Jurisdiction?

Part II-Chapter 44 of the Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act-Laws of the VI

                                   Jurisdiction of Magistrates:

Section 22 (D) (i) States [“The Magistrate SHALL have Jurisdiction- to TRY summarily and convict and sentence ALL PERSONS CHARGED with Committing offences which he/she is Empowered to TRY summarily by and Act/Law”]

Procedure at TRIAL:

Section 49 of the Magistrate’s Code of Procedure act, Chapter 44-

States [“When the ACCUSED appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the Magistrate, except where otherwise in this Act provided, Shall take evidence upon OATH of Witnesses called in SUPPORT of the CHARGE offered on the part of the PROSECUTION”]

Section 50 of the Magistrate’s Code of Procedure Act states-

[“The evidence of every witness shall be given in the presence of the accused and he or his COUNSEL or SOLICITOR shall be entitled to cross-examine such witnesses upon ALL FACTS relevant to the CHARGE, but not, except with leave from the court, upon matter relevant only as affecting his credit”]

The Constitution:

Section 16 of the Virgin Islands Constitution Order, 2007 States-

[“(1) If any person is CHARGED with a Criminal Offence, then, unless the Charge is withdrawn, the case SHALL be afforded a FAIR hearing with reasonable time by an INDEPENDENT and IMPARTIAL Court established by LAW.

(2) Every person who is CHARGED with a Criminal Offence SHALL—

(a)  be presumed to be INNOCENT until he or she is PROVED Guilty according to LAW-

(b) be informed promptly, as prescribe by LAW, in a language that he or she understands and in detail, of the nature of the OFFENCE-CHARGED—

(c) be given adequate time and opportunity for preparation of his or her DEFENCE---

(c)    be permitted to defend himself or herself before the court in person or by his legal practitioner the witnesses called by the prosecution before the court, and obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his or her behalf before the court on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution”]

FAIRNESS: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS-Section 59 of the V.I Constitution:

Her Majesty declared in section 59-

[“(1) There shall be a Director of Public Prosecutions, whose office shall be a Public-Office and who shall be appointed in accordance with section 95.

(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions shall have power, in any case in which he or she considers it desirable to do so-

(a) To institute and undertake Criminal Proceedings against any person before any civil court in respect of any offence AGAINST any LAW-

(b) To take over and continue any such Criminal Proceedings that have been instituted by any other person or authority; and-

( c) To discontinue at any stage before JUDGEMENT is delivered any such Criminal Proceedings instituted or undertaken by himself or herself or any other person or authority”].

                                   Now I ask you the VI Public:-

Did Mr Alred Frett get a FAIR TRIAL under the JUDICIAL laws of the VI?

Generally, as defined by the many pieces of Statutory Legislations and the VI Constitution, when a Citizen/Resident is alleged to have committed a criminal offence, that Citizen/Resident, MUST BE CHARGED, by a Police Officer: The accused Must be served with a CHARGE: The accused MUST appear in Court CHARGED with an OFFENCE: The accused MUST be allowed to enter a plea of Guilty or Not-Guilty: There MUST be a TRIAL, and if after the TRIAL, he is Convicted, then he is sentenced: And after sentence, he MUST be told of his RIGHTS to APPEAL the Sentence!

[“That is how I know the Justice System should operate in Her Majesty’s Democratic Territory of the Virgin Islands-according to Law”].

I didn’t know that because a man is alleged to have Committed a Criminal Offence, under the Criminal Code, and just because the Offence he committed is related to the Courtthat the Court CAN cause him to appear WITHOUT CHARGE? And the Court can allegedly Investigate him, for the offence then allegedly CHARGE him and then SENTENCE HIM?

I have nothing personal against the Magistracy and the office of the DPP: I worked with them side-by-side; but this Country is a Country with a Constitution, declared by Her Majesty-The Queen, to protect the Rights of its citizens/residents.

If Mr Alred Frett Committed an Offence under section 94 of the Criminal Code; he MUST be given a FAIR trial under section 16 of the Constitution. Repeat:

HE MUST BE GIVEN A FAIR TRIAL UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE V.I. CONSTITUTION: It’s written in the VI Constitution:

What happens to Mr Frett today, will happen to “you” tomorrow:

I am blessed and protected by the Power of the Holy Spirit, and I am Protected by the VI Constitution: Don’t support my views: SUPPORT THE LAW!

My dear brothers and sister-Tell the people in authority in this beautiful VI, to:

OBEY HER MAJESTY’S LAWS and RESPECT the RIGHTS of HER CITIZENS and RESIDENTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!

I am afraid that what happened to Mr Frett can happen to me or my friends and relatives-families in the VI.

And it was even Published in the news?

Mr Frett’s name should not have been published because he was not charged with a criminal offence before a court of law under section 16 of the VI Constitution.

I read on the news about a “discussion” in court, about an offence he “allegedly” committed.

Law-is-law-is-law-is-law!

32 Responses to “Letter to the Editor: Did Alred Frett get a fair trial?”

  • we the people (19/08/2013, 11:25) Like (5) Dislike (0) Reply
    this is a good point knight
    • good point? (19/08/2013, 12:54) Like (2) Dislike (0) Reply
      The man once again reading out the law to the public,as written in the law books of the bvi. a citizen allege to commit a crime,the citizen also have rights.there must be trial under the law,the crime is made out under section 94(G) of the code.where is the law that say when the offence is related to the court,the magistrate can tell u go in the prisoner dock and here she is telling the accuse that he commit a offence.where is the police.she didnt tell him that he charge in court for an offence and that having heard the evidence under oath from prosecution witness,she find him guilty.o.m.g;where we, Russia, afghanistan,wake up my people;you have a new constitution.use it to protect your rights.
  • no rights for citizens? (19/08/2013, 11:36) Like (3) Dislike (0) Reply
    we are living in times of adolph hitler again in 2013.look i reading all what the law say on how a citizen suppose to be treated under the law and how a citizen should go to court;so how the news had the man name publish and he ent charge for no crime.who police charge him for the crime in section 94(g) of the criminal code.how can he get a fair trial when a court official say"''when i saw it (the aricle) i wanted to bring a sledge hammer""'.no fairness,no impartiality,clearly the magistrate was aggrieved by frett's article,then she should make a complaint to the police and them police should investigate and charge under the law.you so right,what happen to frett can happen to any body.if he do a offence charge him as the constitution say,and let him defend his self;i agree with those who enlighten the public on the law and their rights.if i do a offence.the police should charge me,and take me to court;not a magistrate just saying come and face me let me charge you and sentence you..its a travesty of justice by the judiciary........................................................................
  • Good ting (19/08/2013, 12:03) Like (6) Dislike (0) Reply
    alot ah dem go be mad with you but i like your prayer,you sound real..who doh like your style it up to dem,but i like how u teaching people the law.they should ah do everything to keep you in de force but dem jokers get personal..you have law knowledge share it with us,you have nothing to lose dem can't do you a ting.you say nothing bad in your article,i like dat..law is law is law.if mr frett committ a crime,charge him and take him to court.they publish the man name like he do a crime..foolishness,bro,i on yr side,i once hear you say,,you on a mission to stamp out lawlessness in bvi,,,the governor didnt hear you when you complain corruption to him,,they will hear you now,,,show us citizens our rights,,,free consultation,,,enjoy your retirement,,,
  • pat (19/08/2013, 12:26) Like (5) Dislike (0) Reply
    So hasppy someone has the balls to standup to injustice
    • pat (20/08/2013, 22:22) Like (0) Dislike (1) Reply
      like standing up to a judge that may say inappropriate things publicly about an open case.
  • civil or criminal (19/08/2013, 13:27) Like (3) Dislike (0) Reply
    mr frett put an article on the news and some of the things he say,offend the magistrate. but what he say may be an offence,under a law out there.who is the complainant in the case and who call police to say an offence committed by mr frett?we hear he appear court charge with what?,the news said(she/magistrate itemized sections of the article which she found to be liable under section 94(G) of the criminal code of the virgin islands) and after she found mr frett liable? that is when she pass sentence on him to remove the article and apologise and she said"""failing a full retraction,action will be taken through the commissioner of police to have mr frett charged with contempt of court"""she ordering the c.o.p?why she didnt call police before,so what was he charge for when he appear in court? and now his name is published in the other news like as though he was found guilty of a crime.no crime,so no charge,then no guilty.
  • one eye (19/08/2013, 14:29) Like (2) Dislike (0) Reply
    My only question is the article was on three online news site and they only pick on one!! Maybe they all only read vino our just a brunch of discriminating hypocrites
  • fair trial? (19/08/2013, 14:49) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply

    they publish the man's picture big and bold on plat and i hear thinking when the mag say i find you alred liable,i checking wah,alred get a big charge.so law is for big one of society only;no trial,but guilty.what kind of operation is that in our country me so.sue dem a$$$$$ mr frett and the prosecutor saying he will tell dpp.you done try the case without charge and prejudice everything now u'all want to involve cop and dpp..,,wwwww who will hear the contemp charge;;;dem must be putin in russia;;;

  • lawyer office (19/08/2013, 15:11) Like (0) Dislike (11) Reply
    so u refuse our job offer and now you giving your country free consultation.you really said,bvi people did good thingss for you and you will serve us as long as god give you health and strength. lol,we are enjoying our legal boy. you did not criticise anyone,u just point out law to us,heeee hhaaaa......law-is-law-is-law-is-law;we love it==
  • false imprisonment (19/08/2013, 16:15) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    when mr frett was told to go in the prisoners dock,he was expecting a charge to be put to him and for him to plead guilty/not guilty,he was detained in the dock,but instead while in the prisoner dock they telling him about a offence he commit,in public and plat news say the ""magistrate wanted to bring sledge hammer"". A sledge hammer to boss whose head?.we dont need no sledge hammer in court,we need the law to guide the magistrate.if you so upset with what you read on vino,then recruse yourself from the case and be a witness for the prosection;dont be a detective investigating crime inside the court house,and then prefer the charge and then try the case and then pass sentence.kool yr emotion madam,we have a constitution.law law law law law law.that is the new roadmatch song,for the bvi,lawlawlawlaw.follow de dam law.and tek down mr frett picture from platinum news site.no charge, no offence, no conviction,no publication by plat,
  • fish (19/08/2013, 18:34) Like (3) Dislike (0) Reply
    knight rider you are spot on..they cannot take away our free speech
  • Totally Amused (20/08/2013, 02:24) Like (1) Dislike (37) Reply
    It is rather disappointing that Mr. Knight missed the point altogether, and at the same time quoting sections of the law which under these circumstances pretty irrelevant. The Magistrate in my opinion, gave .mr. Frett an option/choice to either (a) retract a statement he made which constitutes an iffence pursuant to Section 94(1)(g) of the Criminal code. It has nothing to do with whether or not he got a fair trial because he (Frett) was never tried in the first place. Remember that even though everyone have the freedom of speech under the constitution, it is however limited as as such we also have the libel law. So before you quote sections of the laws, you need to first addressed the circumstances surrounding the issue. As a former Police prosecutor, I am surprised you even wrote an article to since effect, but then again you also have freedom of speech. Nothing personal. Just my opinion.
    • totally amused? (20/08/2013, 09:57) Like (4) Dislike (1) Reply
      What u amaused over..give inspector knight a ring.u want his tele #.tel him you dont want him to educate his ppl on the law,because it making people who dont like law look bad. inspector knight stood for justice and equality,i from here and i belong here,but you will not believe that he dont have to know you to defend you when it comes to the law;and he use tel us in the force, " if you all ever charge a man wrongly and cause me tp prosecute him innocently,i will have you dismissed" so when you bring a case for the inspect to prosecute,you better come good with your evidence,if not,he will not prosecute.this man is just blessed with a passion for equality under the law;because he want people to give him what is his under the law,that all about,obey the law.his slang use to be, "ACCORDING to law law law".law is for every body.when those in authority do things,they have to show us the law,that give them the authority to do. of course there was a TRIAL and a CONVICTION of mr frett.
      • Totally Amused (20/08/2013, 17:16) Like (1) Dislike (2) Reply
        It is very sad that even you missed the point. Mr. Knight question was "Did Alfred get a fair trial?" First and foremost Mr. Frett was never tried. Trial by law as defined by the Webster dictionary is the process by which a judicial system carries out a test to determine the innocence or guilt of a person. There is nothing in law which states that the magistrate cannot informed a person of an act that is deemed criminally whether in court or in chambers. She didn't have to even offer Mr, Frett the courtesy to retract the article he wrote. As a matter of fact she could have simple have a discussion with the DPP and then dragged Mr. Frett before the court for the offence committed by the same section. If she had done that the the conversation would be different. We fail to see that the Magistrate in her wisdom warned him before she harmed him. Ignorance if the law is no excuse and Mr. Frett could considered himself lucky as he got a second chance to make his wrong right. Mr. Frett in his own statement acknowledged that he might have done something that was wrong and decided to removed the article. If Frett thought his article was not a breach of the sane section, I believe he would have been man enough to say, let go for a trial as I don't believe I am wrong and let justice takes its course. No, he opted to retract the statement, and that was the smartest thing he did.
  • Manabouttown (20/08/2013, 08:40) Like (3) Dislike (0) Reply
    Totally Amused, I am pleased that you too are exercising your Constitution rights. I am of the opinion that you have read the letter addressed to the editor in its entirety on the mentioned topic. My questions to you are: Was Mr. Frett charge for any offences? What are the producers for any persons to appear before a Magistrate? Why didn’t the Magistrate make use of her office and have dialogue with Mr. Frett in the present of the Prosecutor? What are the responsibilities of the News Media? What are the producers when letters or blogs is being sent to the news media? In closing I do respect your opinion, but Mr. Knight is making his points pursuant to the law and references are being shown. It is not his opinion, it’s the law. It has been written, so it’s the law.
    • Totally Amused (21/08/2013, 02:21) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
      I am happy that you are pleased with the fact that I am also exercising my freedom of speech but here is a piece of Alfred last article after the issue.
      By Alred C. Frett

      After being threatened with contempt of court and years in prison because of my last article, it must be difficult for those of you who have given me so much support to understand me asking you to restrain from belittling or crucifying the Magistrate… I think she did as she thought fit and I appreciate her lessons and take her instruction to research and educate you most seriously.

      His article is there. He went in to say that the law was made to enskaved us, BUT until the laws are changed, they must be obeyed whether are not we like it or not. I understand his sentiments but as the good old saying goes "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse".
      • Real Estate (24/08/2013, 17:41) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply

        @ Totally Amused

        You are the one who missed the point. The magistrate put a man who had not been charged with any offence in the prisoner's dock and read out charges to him and further gave him directions on pain of arrest. That is completely improper behaviour of a judicial officer and she should be severely reprimanded.

        As for BVI P...m Mr. Frett should sue them for that article. It fits the bill spot on for libel.

  • Knight Rider read the news! (20/08/2013, 08:51) Like (2) Dislike (0) Reply
    I read the news as saying ["Alred Frett in hot water for publication on VINO"]. The news said ["The section of law under which the offence was created,carries a sentence of imprisonment"]To me,The word""Imprisonment""is INTIMIDATION to Mr Frett! The news said ["During the PROCEEDINGS in court,the prosecutor of the DPP's office also addressed the court"].Clearly there was a TRIAL in progress:But I said with legal authority,that section 16 of the V.I Constitution,of 2007,makes PROVISIONS,declaring how a citizen should be brought to court,for a TRIAL.With that Constitutional Authority,I now say,that the Magistrate and the Prosecutor,DID NOT follow the Procedures,as set out in section 16 of the Constitution!Am WRONG to read the BVI LAW? I now say to the DPP and the Magistrate;["You have no Authority in LAW and under the Constitution,to cause Her Majesty's Citizen to go in a Prisoner's Dock,and read-out a section of lAW,under which an offence is created,and then tell him ["I FOUND YOU TO BE LIABLE"]. The wordings after a FAIR- TRIAL,MUST be- ["This COURT has found you GUILTY,as CHARGED; based on the EVIDENCE presented by the Prosecution!"].I now ask;If it was not a TRIAL;then the matter should have been addressed in CHAMBERS[behind closed-doors] I read on the news,that there was a ["Proceeding"].
    WHY WAS HIS NAME AND PICTURE PUBLISHED in the NEWS?
    The news quoted the Magistrate,as saying ["She found [parts of the article] to be liable under section 94(G) of the Criminal Code"] A layman person in BVI society,will interpret that to mean:["Alred Frett was found GUILTY for the offence"] The bloggers on the news chastized Mr.Frett,under the impression,that he is now a CONVICTED CRIMINAL in B.V.I.The news allowed bloggers to BLOGG DEROGOTORY things about Mr Frett. Mr Frett is an Honourable citizen of Her Majesty,who served his people with Dignity.He MAY have crossed the line in his article,and I did say that in my article: But because he cross the line,you should SUBJECT him to Public Humiliation,on a news site?IMPLYING to me as a reader,that he was CONVICTED OF A CRIME! I read on the news,["Frett stood in court before the senior Magistrate"] And the news said ["The Magistrate itemized sections of the article which she FOUND to be LIABLE under section 94(G) of the CRIMINAL CODE"].Did you read the word ["CRIMINAL CODE"?] And there was a Prosecutor/Crown Counsel,Representing the DPP,as prescribe for in section 59 (3) of The Constitution.Her Majesty's Constitution also Declares in section 59,that the DPP's presence in COURT is to PROSECUTE persons CHARGED with CRIMINAL OFFENCES,during A TRIAL,under section 16 of the CONSTITUTION: If it was NOT a CRIMINAL TRIAL,then what was the ROLE of Prosecutor-Herbert Potter?During sentencing,the news IMPLIED["That the prosecutor said,VINO should apologise"] Read the ROLE of the DPP in my article.As a Certified Detective and Certified Criminal Prosecutor,I analyzed the News and the Bloggs,and based on what I read,it was IMPLIED to the LAYMAN person,in BVI Society,That there was a TRIAL,and the news IMPLIED,that Alred Frett,was TRIED and CONVICTED for a CRIMINAL OFFENCE!! Who do you blame?Knight Rider?
    BLAME THE NEWS:Today is Alred Frett-But tomorrow is you or ME:BLAME THE NEWS!
  • blame the news (20/08/2013, 09:38) Like (2) Dislike (0) Reply
    i definitely agree.blame the news.u'll putting news out htere for pll to read,and inviting ppl to blogg and when a good citizen and good samaritan decide that the same thing can happen to him,so he going to explain to us how the law should apply in bvi as he know it,u'll want to even ask de man why he write the article.we want to see more article mr knight.he is now ours out there to educate us on our rights,leave knight rider alone;why ah you didnt keep him in de force/ ehh;all i know him all my life in bvi is working and living good with bvi ppl;i never hear he do bad things to put pll in prison innocently;the man feel free,he on retirement relaxing,plenty of us have go and work everyday..read the law and read it back to us;;you need to have legal corner on vino.you don't insult or disrespect ppl in your article and in yr blogs, the queen give rights,speak your rights.tel dem.i like you for that,as you is just law law law law law l;aw,you win them with just the lawl law la wl
  • trial (20/08/2013, 10:11) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
    sorry mr frett, i did blog to,i thought you were found guilty for a crime; the news should of told us it was just a little warning;for what u say about a pending case,but wen it say is (hot water),it sounded negative; thank you prosecutor knight,i am sure u have friends a family in bvi,and u watching out for them to;i dont kno mr frett to be yr friend but i guest what is good for goose should good for ganda. mr frett,continue to do what u like to do on yr program but be a bit more careful,ok
  • law law law (20/08/2013, 10:30) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    show us the law that say that if i commit a offence and the offence is about bad things about the court...the mag can tell me go in the box and she read the offence to me and read my article and tell me she ::found me liable:: i read the article and the law as the gentleman explain the law; so i want prosecutor potter to show the exception law;because the offence is in criminal code..criminal code means,you charge like criminal;is the news who say that,is not the singer who first publish the word criminal code. mr frett was not liable for nothing under no criminal code. if he do a crime let police deal with him;to late now,he was wrongly found guilty;dont defend the court and dpp.they should apologise to mr frett for causing his name and picture to be publishe.poor mr frett,he ent convicted for nothing but he in hot water? Stuuuuppsss
  • guilty by platinum of hot water! (20/08/2013, 11:57) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    I am a layman in the bvi,when i read the news and the reporter of the news quote a part in the law which say that "" a person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to IMPRISONMENT for a term not exceeding three years blah blah blah""in my basic understanding,the news say,the magistrate read out the particulars of offence to mr frett and then she read out parts of the article and she tell him,(I found what you wrote to be liable under the same law section 94(g) of the criminal code),that she had read out previously.she found him liable,so liable means guilty.who boiling the water? you all publish this court case,on the news,saying frett in HOTWATER and because another person who understand law decide to challenge the facts,some of you want to stop him? Frett in HOTWATER,that means he burning to death.is like tek dat frett,you never thought that someone would challenge ah you on the law and procedure.The magistrate should have make a report to the police about what she read on vino and the other news;but instead,she decided to address the matter unfairly in open court for all to hear and report,and to show how upset she was at frett,the news quoted her as saying;
    "WHEN I SAW IT(the article)I WANTED TO BRING A SLEDGE HAMMER".she said that to frett.The news is indicating to us,the magistrate was upset at mr frett. Mr frett might go to far,and break the law of the land,the magistrate is there to dispense justice after a conviction.her job is not to bring her anger and a SLEDGE HAMMER to the court.It is the news that report,how the magistrate appeared ANGRY. The headline in the news should read (ALRED FRETT WAS BEATEN WITH A SLEDGE HAMMER)because I read about a sledge hammer on it way to court, i never hear the magistrate say anything about GUILTY and sentence to HOTWATER.the magistrate can say what she want on her desk,we will give our views in the public.that is what a true democracy is all about. Is the news to BLAME: thanks vino for allowing me to blogggg.
  • pat (20/08/2013, 12:32) Like (2) Dislike (0) Reply
    so if a defendant seeks outside representation for a fair trial, he is considered "manipulating" the system. If he knows he can't get an objective opinion, and off-hand comments by the sitting judge on an open case are published, why can't a defendant hire solicitors outside the territory? Some cases are already being tried in the media.
  • bloggers views (20/08/2013, 12:45) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    I now sympathise with a c frett. in one of the bloggs in the news 'frett in hot water for publication on vino' a bloger wrote and said
    'I am glad the Magistrate gave a alred a chance rather than bringing down the HAMMER-We all do stupid stuff sometimes,but better to give the man a chance to fix his own mistake'.thats was blogged.
    you guys are correct,it is the news and the bloggs who identify some kind of big HAMMER inside the court. and every body now thinking that because the HAMMER was not used,mr frett get a break. The blogger 'amuse' blog to say that there was not a trial. ok,then there seems to have been a 'FIGHT'? and frett lost. ac frett was barehands. He received no charge,they claim no trial,but out of a simple dialogue,we read on news about this big HAMMER in court. SUE DEM FRETT: SUE ALL AH DEM. and let them blame the other news who report that you hot water and a hammer there for you..
  • court dramma (20/08/2013, 13:13) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    breaking news at the court. alred frett in hot water;; magistrate coming with anger and sledge hammer;; prosecutor coming with threats to vinno;;platinum will publish the photo and the fight;; it was a show down;;no law;;no constitution;;no rules;;no procedure;; no apology;;no charge;;no guilty;;no conviction;; go tell the other news;;is dem bring the court dramma to light;;;no trial;;fight fight;;let platinum report the dramma;;stay out vinno;;;;;boom boom boom drmma
  • To Platinum (20/08/2013, 16:34) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    The blogger ""Totally Amuse" blog to say Frett was never "Tried" for a charge in the court. But Platinum,You make us believe that Frett in hot water.The water was just cold water."Totally Amuse" you seems to be spoke person for the DPP and the Magistrate, so tell Platinum, to retract and take dowm the mr Frett picture from the news,because it was not a trial that take place;it was a "hammer"on trial. I agree with "totally Amuse". no trial so no" I found you to be liable"..The headline "BackFire" now you looking to justify the abuse on mr frett. Mr.Frett was abused and his rights was VIOLATED.make dem pay mr frett,dem too nonelaw..
  • Knight Rider say"It was a Conspiracy" (21/08/2013, 10:42) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    Last night before the lord led me into a peaceful bed-rest,I had prayed and called on god the creator of life,to protect me,my family,relatives,friends & those who declare themselves as my-enemies; here in the B.V.I and overseas.And while I was asleep,I was guided by the Holy Spirit,into a Spiritual-DREAM.In the Dream,I saw many of my former colleagues in the B.V.I,with copies of my lawful-article,which I had Published on VINO,in the Free and Democratic Territory of Her Majesty's B.V.I.The article was being read by them. In the DREAM,The Holy Spirit,interpreted to me,that some of you are NOT pleased,with my Legitimate Intentions to Shed Light to My People,on their "Fundamental Rights and Freedoms" in a Free and Democratic B.V.I. But as all of you know of the Legal Saying: "Justice must not only be done-But Reasonably SEEN to be Done!"
    It was a Public Conspiracy:
    Last night,I read on VINO,an article from BRAVE-citizen Mr Alred Frett,as he exercised his freedom of expression and freedom of speech,on a democratic news site,in the free and Democratic Territory of the B.V.I.
    I read a question in Mr Frett's article,which asked""Was it a set-up""And his answer led me believe that there was a PUBLIC CONSPIRACY,between Public Officials of Our Judiciary and a Legal Representative of the Crown,to cause a Private Citizen to be UNLAWFUL photographed,and THREATENED with False and Unlawful,Imprisonment,and to Publish his Photo and events of a "QUASI" AMICABLE "proceeding"into the Public's Domain for ALL of us to see,read & Blog! They Publish a "Quasi [private] Matter" for everyone to read and BLOGG.

    Now that I have read, I WILL BLOGG on the LAW!

    Section 19 of the V.I Constitution,2007 states:"Protection of private and family Life":-

    ["(1) Every Person has the RIGHT to RESPECT for his or her PRIVATE and Family Life"].

    So here we have a Private Citizen of Her Majesty,[well-respected alred frett] walking to the Courts,to Give Support to His son,[as a family] and as he WALKS up the Steps to the COURT,he was PHOTOGRAPHED by a RECKLESS photographer who Published the Man's Photograph for ALL to SEE. Was he charged before the Photograph?
    Protection of RIGHT to Personal Liberty-Section 15 of The Constitution states:-
    ["(1) Every person has the RIGHT to Liberty and SECURITY of the PERSON and (2) No person shall be deprived of his or her personal Liberty--xxx"]

    Protection from Discrimination:"Section 26 of the V.I Constitution,2007 states:-

    ["(3) NO PERSON shall be TREATED in a DISCRIMINATORY manner by any [other] PERSON acting under Written-LAW or Performing the Functions of any PUBLIC OFFICE or any PUBLIC AUTHORITY"]

    It was a Conspiracy to HUMILIATE a Citizen of Her Majesty,In Public View!
    Do you see the "One-Sided-ness" of our Society? grammer:onesideness is not an grammatical phrase.

    They Conspired with the MEDIA,to make Public Example of an HONORABLE and ADMIRABLE Citizen of Her Majesty's B.V.I,and they [The Conspirators] Caused the HUMILIATION to PUBLISHED to the WORLD,and they invited readers to BLOGG,and Because Knight Rider Put his BLOGG, and a DREAM Led him to SEE,Some of you VEX? Well stay VEX!!
    Oh I see: You ALL never see Knight Rider Coming to Also PUBLICLY Defend my Fellow Citizen,with the Power of the Holy Spirit and the AUTHORITY of the V.I Constitution?

    Her Majesty-The Queen,DID NOT authorize you to HUMILIATE Her Citizens.
    What happen to Mr Frett today WILL Happen to " you people "tomorrow:Do not Support LAWLESSNESS in Public Life.
  • To H.E The Governor (21/08/2013, 16:59) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    I Knight Rider has now declared myself the Public Defender for Mr Alred Frett,a citizen of Her Majesty-The Queen,who was Publicly Humiliated,for Exercising His Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of an individual,in Her Majesty's Democratic Territory of the B.V.I.

    I now call on the Queen's Representative,the Governor to Exercise His Powers Under section 95 (9) and (10) of Her Majesty's Constitution,2007, and take the APPROPRIATE ACTION upon those responsible for such HUMILIATION of the Queen's Citizen:

    They Paraded the CASE in the Media,for me to read and Blogg: They wanted us see Alred Frett walking to Her Majesty's Court,nicely ATTIRED; in his Long-sleeve shirt and Tie. I felt bad for the Citizen,and TEARS came out my EYES,and I realized the if Mr Frett was my DAD,I might have lost my TEMPER!

    Your Excellency,I reported to you before,about these Level of Lawlessness,towards my People and me,and I also reported FOR THE RECORDS; to Buckingham Palace and Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

    Years later,my people are still subjected to Discrimination and Humiliation;despite of "Fundamental Rights and Freedoms" Guaranteed to us by Her Majesty-The Queen!

    Don't blame me for my Blogs:Blame the Publishers,who Orchestrated,the Publishing of the case:OK?

    Because I was at peace;UNTIL a citizen of the B.V.I was ATTACKED,with such FLAGRANT and BLATANT, DESRESPECT for Human Pride and HUMAN-Dignity in the B.V.I. We respect Authority:Where is their Respect for the Citizens?

    Your Excellency;I hereby REFER you sir; to the OTHER NEWS SITE,and you will READ the article,and you will see MR Frett's PICTURE,walking to Her Majesty's Court,as though he is a CRIMINAL!

    Print a copy of the photo and story:Take it to the C.O.P and ask the the Commissioner of Police:[""WAS ALRED FRETT EVER CHARGED FOR A CRIME IN HER MAJESTY'S DEMOCRATIC TERRITORY OF THE B.V.I""?] and when the C.O.P will have said ["NO"] you may ask the D.P.P,then WHY was his photograph Published in Public?

    What happen to Alred Frett Can Happen to any other Citizen/Resident of the B.V.I!
    That is why I am so Passionate about this case!

    WHY? WHY? WHY? Why did they do that to Mr.Alred Frett? I want an INVESTIGATION!
  • boreconstricter (21/08/2013, 23:23) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
    A classic case where a magistrate held a lawyer in contempt and remanded him in custody. He sued the govt and won. Ramesh Maharaj v AG of Trinidad and Tobago read the case u will get the whole story of what Knight is talking about.
  • Manabouttown (22/08/2013, 22:20) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
    A MAGISTRATE/ JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
    An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.


Create a comment


Create a comment

Disclaimer: Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) welcomes your thoughts, feedback, views, bloggs and opinions. However, by posting a blogg you are agreeing to post comments or bloggs that are relevant to the topic, and that are not defamatory, liable, obscene, racist, abusive, sexist, anti-Semitic, threatening, hateful or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be excluded permanently from making contributions. Please view our declaimer above this article. We thank you in advance for complying with VINO's policy.

Weather


Follow Us On

Disclaimer: All comments posted on Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) are the sole views and opinions of the commentators and or bloggers and do not in anyway represent the views and opinions of the Board of Directors, Management and Staff of Virgin Islands News Online and its parent company.