Magistrate tells Police Officer to get papers & prepare for trial
Frett is charged with two counts of using indecent language during an incident allegedly involving a missing cell phone which occurred at the Elmore Stoutt High School (ESHS) on June 1, 2011. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
During the defendant’s appearance at the court yesterday, Crown Counsel Leslie Ann Faulkner stated that the two security guards to be called as Crown witnesses in the matter had turned up to court dutifully on several occasions but the trial continues to be stalled as a result of the continued absence of the defendant’s attorney. The matter was reportedly before the court for some time now.
Frett's trial was scheduled to start on February 4, 2013.
Faulkner added that the witnesses were present during yesterday’s hearing and were frustrated given the fact that she was hopeful of starting the trial at the time.
According to the court records Frett and a Kadeem Maynard went to the ESHS on June 1, 2011 after receiving a call from Ms. Frett’s daughter, who had her mobile phone stolen sometime during the day.
The duo had a conversation with one of the Assistant Principals and then proceeded to the classroom where Frett’s daughter was. There, the pair began to conduct searches of the students and their belongings. Following this, one of the students objected to the search and a dispute ensued between the student and the defendants.
Thereafter, Frett and Maynard allegedly went to the main gate in order to block students from leaving the campus. The court heard that Maynard allegedly ran to a parked jeep, got a baseball bat, returned and with it started to chase the students back inside the school yard.
A report was made to the Road Town Police Station on June 2, 2011. Maynard pleaded guilty to the offence and was fine $2000 on July 23, 2012.
Frett indicated that her attorney, Patricia Archibald-Bowers, had made prior contact with the Magistrate’s court to indicate her absence.
Meanwhile, Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards expressed that a look through her notes would indicate that the attorney seemed to always be at the High Court which prompted the defendant to ask whether the High Court takes precedence over the Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate responded in the negative.
Frett disputed the fact that the defence was responsible for the delays in the trial but the Magistrate indicated most of the delays were as a result of her lawyer’s absence.
Magistrate Richards suggested that it was perhaps a good time to seek new counsel but the defendant replied that she had already paid her money to the law firm. Magistrate Richards then suggested that maybe the client should retrieve her payment for not being represented in court.
“Either get your lawyer, or come prepared to defend yourself, ” said Magistrate Richards.
She added that the Court has to function and lawyers needed to schedule their diaries to ensure that conflicts were minimised in the best possible way.
Magistrate Richards then told the defendant that she may very well have to get her papers and come prepared to defend herself at her trial as the case would be proceeding at the next hearing with or without the presence of her attorney.
The trial is scheduled to continue on May 7, 2013.
23 Responses to “Magistrate tells Police Officer to get papers & prepare for trial”
Need to say that Ms Frett is a POLICE OFFICER...she along should know that law.
Secondly I applaud the student... You were exercising your right.
Thirdly that is not conduct of a police officer. That is the example that is being set for our kids? How are these children suppose to respect that police officer again? in my opinion she should be suspended. we do not need these kind of people as police officers.
LANGUAGE:Language is defined as a noun,meaning"(1)Human communication through the use of spoken or written words".Indecent-Language?Section 289 of the Criminal Code of 1997? Where is it defined in section 289,that a [set of words],including the "F" word is criminalized as an offence in law?Section 289 SUB-SECTION (5) states"A prosecution for an offence under this section[289] SHALL-NOT be brought except with the CONSENT of the ATTORNEY GENERAL".However,In June 2007,the new V.I Constitution,made provision under section 59 for a Director of Public Prosecutions-DPP,who took away the power of Criminal Prosecution from the Attorney General:But sub-section (5) of 289 of the Criminal Code,remained Un-Amended! WPC FRETT,let the Legal-Team and his attorneys represent you.Bring a lawsuit against the COP & DPP for Malicious Prosecution;because the law[section 289] does not declare-as a definition,that the "F" word or other similar-words,practically called "indecent language" is,when used in public,makes its usage to be a Criminal Offence.I have asked this question for 25yrs and I will ask it again;"Who determines what word is Indecent?The law-books or the Magistrate?" Further more,the law-sub-section(5) of the said code,declares,that for the COP to charge you for this offence,he must first seek the Consent of the A.G:You already pay a lawyer?Ok,tell the lawyer,don't come to court:You will Just plead Not Guilty!If the Magistrate fines you guilty,because she determined what Indecent Language is; appeal to the High Court of Justice on a point of Law:WHEN you win the Appeal,Sue the Crown-DPP & COP,and give the money to Charity!Law-is-Law,and they Must follow the DAAAM-LAW!!