Magistrate Dr Velon L. John stamped his authority at what appeared to be perceived attempts by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to control the proceedings at the Magistrate’s Court today, February 12, 2014. Photo: File

The court was at the time hearing submissions in relation to a matter that had been dragging on before the court for some time – the trial of Tevorn and Terence Stapleton - both of whom are accused of the offences of indecent language and disorderly conduct, allegedly committed against a Police Officer. Tevorn is further charged with resisting arrest.

Crown Counsel Herbert Potter requested an adjournment in the matter while noting that his instructions were that the matter should be heard by Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards, under whom the matter had started.

However, Magistrate John objected to this and stated that the Crown may seek an adjournment and it is for the Court to use its discretion to advise whether this could be granted.

Potter continued by stating that the matter was previously before another Magistrate [Richards] who had not taken leave of the bench and added, given that the defendants were currently on bail, there was no prejudice to the matter being heard when Magistrate Richards returns from maternity leave.

He further argued that the main witness and Investigating Officer are the same person - the Virtual Complainant (VC) – and he was always present when the matter came up for hearing. The VC, he added, has already given testimony and was cross examined by the defence.

Notably, the VC was absent for today’s hearing as Potter said he was out of the jurisdiction since December.

The defence, led by attorney Marie-Lou Creque requested that the matter be dismissed for want of prosecution since she felt that the VC should have been present if he was interested in proceeding with the matter.

Magistrate John said with the exception of the note about the VC’s absence, the arguments posed by the Crown were irrelevant. At this point, he quickly added, “No one directs me… as to whether I can grant an adjournment or not.”

It was on the basis of the VC’s absence today that he agreed on a final adjournment date of April 16, 2014 for the continuation of trial for the defendants.