Stanley Powell Jr seen leaving the Magistrate's Court on March 21, 2013. Photo: VINO

The Crown succeeded in a request to have no blogs attached to the reporting of an open court matter when an application was brought before the Magistrate's Court on January 18, 2013. The trial involves Stanley Powell Jnr who is charged with common assault against his ex-wife. Photo:VINO/File

Stanley Powell Jr had previously pleaded not guilty to the charge of common assault before Magistrate Valerie Stephens on Monday January 16, 2012. He was granted bail in the sum of $20,000 with one signed surety.

As she was being cross-examined by defence attorney Marie Lou Creque today, March 21, 2013 the VC said that she could not recall telling her then husband to hit her and that he was not a man. The VC also disputed that she was only held by Powell when he was trying to restrain her during their alleged confrontation.

The witness, who later confessed to the court that her husband had returned to the home for 2-3 days in early January of the following year, said she later filed a report on the incident that occurred on January 8, 2011 because it had started to ‘define’ her. She also stated, “I felt I needed to stand up for myself and that he had wronged me… it felt like the right thing to do.”

According to the VC, Police did not take pictures of the injuries she had reportedly suffered as a result of the alleged incident.

The VC testified that the defendant had returned home to work on the marriage after she had acceded to his ‘many pleas’ made through BlackBerry Messenger (bbm) in addition to a meeting the two had in person.

The VC also denied that the entire claim that she made was all a lie and that she made it up to force her husband to stay with her. She also denied that she was only pursuing the matter in an effort to cause him to leave the country.

The sister of the VC also gave evidence during the trial and said that both her sister and the defendant were fun loving persons.

The trial will continue on May 14, 2013.

See previous story posted January 21, 2013:

Crown succeeds in silencing 'bloggers' again

- VC gives gruesome details of alleged assault at trial involving Pussers Manager

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – The Crown has succeeded in a request for a usually open court matter of common assault to be restricted from ‘blogs’ (readers’ comments) once posted on online news sites based on the circumstances surrounding the matter.

Crown Counsel Leslie Ann Faulkner, appearing before alternative Magistrate Mr Richard Rowe on January 18, 2013, made an application for the matter of common assault to be heard as a closed proceeding or have the Virtual Complainant’s (VC’s) testimony be heard in camera; failing either of these measures, Ms Faulkner requested that ‘blogs’ not be placed on any publications of the matter in the online news coverage of the trial. Ms Faulkner declared that she meant no offence to the reporters convering the trial and expressed that the case arose out of a domestic violence situation while noting that ‘blogs’ attached to previous articles on the matter caused significant ‘suffering’ to the VC.

Stanley Powell Jnr, had previously pleaded not guilty to the charge of common assault before Magistrate Valerie Stephens on Monday January 16, 2012; he was granted bail in the sum of $20,000 with one signed surety.

According to Crown Counsel Sarah Benjamin, who first presented the Crown's case, Powell and his wife were married on December 10, 2011. However, on December 28, 2011, the defendant, who is a Manager at Pussers reportedly called his wife and informed her he was delayed at work, and then called back to notify her that he will be out with friends having drinks.

The court heard that the VC called two of her husband’s friends and requested that they do not keep him out too late. She also tried calling Powell several times and when he finally did answer his mobile, angrily told her he did not appreciate the VC calling his friends to check up on him. At around 7 p.m., when the 33 year-old St. Maarten national finally arrived home and he allegedly related in an angry tone, that his wife should never pull that stunt again, Crown Counsel Benjamin disclosed. According to the VC, the couple had earlier planned to share a romantic evening together, watching the sunset from their porch.

Meanwhile, Resident Magistrate Rowe was told of the ‘psychological and emotional’ suffering that the VC endured as a result of the ‘blogs’ and was asked to be mindful of the fact that even though the matter was one of public interest, the comments attached to the articles on two unnamed news websites forced the VC to seek professional counselling which confirmed her suffering.

Defence lawyer, Mrs Marie-Lou Creque, expressed that if the VC had suffered, then the same should apply to the defendant; she was also keen to note that the report did not specifically refer to the VC’s ‘suffering’ as being directly resultant from the ‘blogs’ placed on any of the articles. Though she was not in agreement with the application, however, Mrs Creque did not offer an official objection to the application being heard.

Mr Rowe acceded to the request that no ‘blogs’ be placed on any published articles and made an order to this effect, but denied the request for the proceedings to be closed or for the VC’s testimony to be heard in camera.

The VC then took the witness stand and related the harrowing details of the night of the event, December 28, 2011 and the incidents leading up to and after the alleged assault took place.

Before the couple, now separated, were joined together in marriage, any accusations of infidelity were vehemently denied by the accused who refuted any aspect of a third party being involved in the couple’s relationship.

The court heard that the ordeal took place over a period of roughly one hour at the home of the couple and within this time the VC was allegedly choked, held down, shaken, slapped and spit upon among other things. The Court was further told that the VC screamed in protest several times during the alleged assault, at one point telling the defendant, “stop, you’re going to break my neck.”

She also related that the defendant took out his phone during the ordeal while still allegedly holding the VC down with his knees on the bed and began texting. He allegedly told the VC that he was telling her brother that he was the recipient of the assault. “I am telling him that I came home and you attacked me,” the defendant allegedly told his wife at the time.

The woman allegedly received injuries to her neck and face as a result of the alleged assault as well as soreness and bruising to her upper arm. She told the court that she did not seek medical attention but rather, endured the pain and covered the injuries by wearing long sleeved clothing to cover any injuries on her arm.

The VC also told the court that she had slapped the defendant as well as spit on him on at least one occasion on the said night. It was further related that the defendant was very apologetic after the incident and allegedly said “I can’t believe I did this to my wife.”

BlackBerry Messenger (bbm) conversations of the ordeal between the two which, allegedly occurred days after the incident, also allegedly detailed the defendant’s apologies and were later self-emailed to the VC’s address and tendered as evidence in the court.

In giving her testimony, the VC told the court that the defendant allegedly related to her that he had received several scratches from bushes he had ran into after the incident.

He had allegedly been chased by dogs following the incident and ran into the bushes for cover. At the time, the VC told the court, the defendant had intended to use her vehicle to go to the strip club but she jumped on the vehicle to prevent him from doing so and later gave chase in her vehicle after he had left the home on foot. The trial continues on March 21, 2013.

As a result of the Magistrate's ruling in this matter, no blogs will permitted on this article.