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

UPDATE: Witnesses met to get dates ‘right’ in “Supercop” assault – Court hears

- Callwood denies being near shed when alleged incident took place
Glenn Callwood, a resident of Horse Path, was charged with indecent assault and has since been interdicted from duty. Photo: VINO
ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – Three witnesses reportedly met each other to get the date an alleged sexual assault incident occurred straightened among themselves, according to a defence witness who testified today, January 20, 2014 at the Magistrate’s court.

Though no date has so far been entered as testimony of when the alleged incident took place, the three men, including the Virtual Complainant (VC), who all testified on behalf of the Crown in the case against accused Police Officer Glen Callwood, allegedly met at the location where the alleged incident occurred and discussed possible dates among themselves.

The witness who testified today, a Janitor/Gas Pump attendant with the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force, told the court that during his duties on February 4, 2013, the VC drove into the compound ‘laughing and cussing’ as he normally did to announce his presence.

The VC allegedly stated, “I’m gonna shoot that [expletive] policeman. I must shoot that [expletive].” Before one of his colleagues allegedly asked who had troubled him.

According to the witness, the VC allegedly replied, “That [expletive] Police boy Callwood. On Friday [February 1, 2013] he pulled me over on Joe’s Hill Road and disrespected me in front of my wife.”

“I must shoot that [explective]. This boy always [expletive] around me,” the VC allegedly added. “Last week he pulled me over by LIME in town and I must do something to him. I must fix him because this is harassment.”

The witness said he spent about 15 minutes at the gas pump re-fuelling vehicles before going near the shed where the alleged incident occurred and overheard the three Crown witnesses discussing dates.

The VC, he reported, allegedly said, “We have to get this thing right, all of us have to say the same thing.”

Earlier, Callwood denied being near the shed where the alleged incident occurred at the time it was said to have occurred in December 2012.  

He further told the court that he declined to issue a traffic ticket to the VC even though he was not in possession of a driver’s licence at the time he had stopped him. 

The matter will resume on January 29, 2014 when a decision is expected.

See previous story posted January 15, 2014:

‘Supacop’ left stinging blow to man’s testicles – Court hears

- officer allegedly attempted to solicit other worker

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – The Virtual Complainant in a matter involving Police Officer, Mr. Glenn Callwood aka Supacop, told the court yesterday, January 14, 2014, that he felt a stinging pain in his private parts after he was allegedly struck by the officer.

Callwood, a resident of Horse Path, was charged with indecent assault and has since been interdicted from duty. 

“I feel a stinging blow… ‘bam’, on my testicles,” the VC testified before telling the court that he then asked, “Callwood, what the heck you doing?”  

According to the VC, his body froze for some time after the defendant grabbed his private parts and pulled on it and he was left in pain for approximately five minutes. 

The witness then testified that Callwood responded, “I would do it again,” before walking off in the direction of another worker nearby. 

The VC told the Court that Callwood then allegedly told the nearby worker, “I want a piece of you, you are more tender.” 

The man, who was reportedly ‘sharpening a piece of tool’ at the time, allegedly responded, “If you touch me again I will stick you with this [chisel] in your chest.” The defendant then allegedly left the scene afterwards.  

The Court heard that the VC, a maintenance supervisor at the Road Town Police Station, was approximately four feet above ground and addressing his workers when Callwood approached him and allegedly committed the offence. 

The VC testified that three of his workers were present during the incident but could not recall the specific date it happened. The Court heard that the incident allegedly occurred sometime between the end of November and the end of December, 2012. He noted that the incident occurred at approximately 8:30 a.m. on a Monday, as he usually addresses his workers around that time. 

The alleged victim said he knew the defendant, Callwood, for approximately eight (8) years prior to the incident. 

The man further explained to the Court that he took over one month to report the incident because of the potential embarrassment he would have felt but eventually overcame this when Callwood allegedly passed by his office and uttered, “One thing I know, is that I born here.” 

The man who told the Court that he grew up between St. Thomas, USVI and the [British] Virgin Islands said he became concerned after this and felt that the defendant would be likely to commit the alleged offence again and decided to report it. 

The VC denied suggestions by Attorney, Stephen Daniels that he only made up and reported the incident because Callwood had issued him a traffic ticket when he was travelling with his wife. 

The man’s worker later testified that he too did not record the date as he did not expect that the issue ‘would reach so far’. He denied being involved in a conspiracy to deprive another man (Callwood) of his bread (earnings). 

The trial continues and the Crown, represented by Attorney Herbert Potter, is expected to call a total of five witnesses in presenting their case. 

32 Responses to “UPDATE: Witnesses met to get dates ‘right’ in “Supercop” assault – Court hears”

  • Queen (15/01/2014, 07:55) Like (3) Dislike (1) Reply
    My my my I am speechless
  • ccc (15/01/2014, 08:11) Like (2) Dislike (1) Reply
    hope its not a love gonew wrong
  • bay yute (15/01/2014, 08:22) Like (2) Dislike (0) Reply
    Car key
  • ... (15/01/2014, 08:31) Like (13) Dislike (0) Reply
    Sexual harrassment should be taken seriously regardless of gender
  • chupss (15/01/2014, 09:24) Like (8) Dislike (5) Reply
    Why deeds two big hard back man got dem business in the public domain like this eh?
  • BOL (15/01/2014, 10:14) Like (24) Dislike (0) Reply
    The VC told the Court that Callwood then allegedly told the nearby worker, “I want a piece of you, you are more tender.”

    BOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

    I nearly fall out my chair reading this !!!
  • casper (15/01/2014, 10:42) Like (3) Dislike (3) Reply
    This is not good at all. A disgrace to the force ! you should not use the uniform to get your jollys
  • ting to talk (15/01/2014, 14:40) Like (3) Dislike (12) Reply
    The man has a wife he is not gay
  • car cay (15/01/2014, 18:44) Like (3) Dislike (1) Reply
    Well tickets revenue gone down since robo cop on suspenion
  • long look me come from (15/01/2014, 21:53) Like (5) Dislike (3) Reply
    only because he is local he being treated that way
  • teacher john (15/01/2014, 22:12) Like (6) Dislike (3) Reply
    the BVI has too many bloggers for a nation that is so illiterate.
  • legal team (16/01/2014, 09:22) Like (11) Dislike (1) Reply
    It's 2pm UK time and 9am Eastern Caribbean time:I am not VEX with the Bloggers,for their views:

    I am not academically-socially-educated,and I have no formal education,and I am not the recipient of a Bachelor's of laws degree,from a credible legal Institution,so no one should accept my views:

    Just my views from what I read in the story on this reliable and democratic news site VINO:

    It appears to me that two big grown men[co-workers] know each other [very well] ,and one likes to make jokes/fun with the other,and on this occasion,the Virtual Complainant did not appreciate the distance the joke/fun went;so he complained the defendant to the police authority:So police wash-their-hands and refer the case to the DPP. Obviously,the DPP chose criminal prosecution,instead of disciplinary tribunal. Hmmmm!
    Section 59 of the V.I Constitution,authorizes the DPP to Institutue Criminal Proceedings:
    Section 37 of the Police Act,authorizes the COP to Institute Disciplinary proceedings,after consultation,with the Governor; by the Police Service Commission,under section 97 of the V.I Constitution!
    The Law
    Criminal Code(amendment)Act,2006,no.8 of 2006-laws of the Virgin Islands:-
    Section 124 states:-
    [""(1) Any person who makes an 'Indecent Assault' on another person commits an offence and is liable-
    (a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five year""] I agree,law is law;but-

    I am trying understand,the significance of this Criminal Prosecution,under the Criminal Code,amendment act,as oppose to a Disciplinary prosecution,under section 37 of the Police Act! And this is why I ask the question:

    Clearly,from the evidence,it appears that the defendant was joking/playing around with the complainant,whom he knows well and he played-around in the presence of [3 other co-workers].

    Point of law Legal Terms [Mens Rea & Actus Reus] The Elements of a Crime:

    Mens rea has been defined in Criminal Law,as having a [Guilty Mind] with criminal intent:
    Actus reus has been defined in Criminal Law,as having the intention of committing a crime[criminal offence] or the actual commission of the criminal offence: Both elements MUST be proved!!

    To prove the charge [beyond a reasonable doubt] the crown/prosecution MUST adduce evidence [under Oath] that at the time of the touching,the defendant [with criminal intent-mens rea] committed a crime[with actus rea].
    Three(3) co-workers of the VC were present?When the defendant allegedly committed this joking-offence?

    A Critical piece of reasonable doubt:VINO news reported ""The man's co-worker later testified that he too did not record the date as he did not expect that the issue 'would reach so far' """A crown's witness said that???!!

    This is a crown's witness [under oath] inferring to the court,""REASONABLE DOUBT of legal Criminal Intent!""

    In my opinion """This is a public case of MALICIOUS PROSECUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""
  • to Legal team (16/01/2014, 10:42) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    You are an as$. Suppose he had done it to one of the little kids usually run around the police station. You would had said, oh it was a joke. Everything has boundaries. And the man of the law that you are suggesting malicious prosecution. You being selective Now with the law. Super cop should know his limit. Is he not the one alleged that a police officer assaulted him, by presumably touching him, and he made a report against the officer. And FYI the PSC suggested he be charged criminally. Do you know how much complaints are against this man? Do you ?
  • One month to report the incident? (16/01/2014, 10:56) Like (18) Dislike (1) Reply
    Legal Team will blogg on the facts and on the LAW: I will not wish Evil on anyone:

    Did you all read the reliable news as reported by VINO,or you are anxious to exercise your freedom of speech to blogg? Did you read the article? Go and read it!

    Is the office of the DPP serious about Criminal Prosecution?

    A big grown man,[The Complainant] waited for OVER-30 days to report an incident of an assault[a crime] ,claiming he was too embarrassed to report it before, and you all found the case to be CREDIBLE?

    Where is the medical report from a doctor,to say""minute after this assault the v/c complained of pain to his testicles? He hid the Crime for 30 days:WHY? WHY? WHY? Not even the witnesses report the crime?

    [This is not a child who was afraid to tell on his uncle or cousin] 30 days a big man afraid to talk!!

    A man who works at the Police Station Compound,where he sees police officers every day,waited for Thirty (30) days and Thirty (30) nights, to report a summary offence,which was allegedly committed on the police compound,two minutes walk to the Guard-Desk at the Police Station!

    For 30 days, the complainant did not tell one police officer about this serious criminal offence??

    Now the office of the DPP found it reasonable in the Public's Interest to prosecute,after the complainant waited for 30 days to report the crime? AFTER CALLWOOD ISSUE A TRAFFIC TICKET?

    BVI people,watch your back!!

    Same thing they did to Mr. Alred Frett with their Non-sense about [Alred Frett In hot water for publication on VINO]

    It turned out that Mr. Frett did NOT commit a criminal offence in the BVI!

    Oh,with the Callwood case; ["Put it before the Magistrate-let them say"he not guilty or guilty"] I see,I see?

    You call that justice for BVI people?

    It is DPP's office to decide to prosecute,based on the CREDIBILITY of the EVIDENCE!

    Stop taking advantage on Her Majesty's Citizens with such level of ABUSE of Her Majesty's Justice System!!

    The case against Mr. Callwood, has NO MERIT for a Criminal Prosecution! 30 days to report the case,has deteriorated the Merits and Credibility of the case! A.B.C common sense!

    Callwood;
    if they Convict you with ""DAT"" kind of Evidence,take the case to Her Majesty's PRIVY Council in the UK,where the Judges at the Privy Council look at the EVIDENCE:I will get you a Queen's Council to represent you there:

    Judges at the PRIVY Council-They do NOT look at the DEFENDANT! They will look at the law & the evidence!]

    Take the case to the PRIVY Council!! Then after, SUE the DPP!!
  • CASE DISMISS (17/01/2014, 21:13) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
    finish this stupid case
  • ezz (17/01/2014, 22:32) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
    He getting fat life good
  • The mens rea of Indecent Assault! (17/01/2014, 22:42) Like (2) Dislike (1) Reply

    Dear DPP & CC Potter;permit a member of the Legal Team to address you,on [the Legal-Latin Term of "mens rea" of Indecent Assault]

    Turn your page to ""Criminal Law"" seventh edition, by J.C Smith and Brian Hogan-UK Lawlords:

    Legal Qualification of JC Smith [CBE-Queen's Council,LLD,FBA-of Lincoln's Inn,Honorary Bencher;Honorary Fellow of Downing College,Cambridge Emeritus Professor of Law,University of Nottingham UK]

    Legal Qualification of Brian Hogan [LLB of Gray's Inn,Barrister;Professor of Common Law and Head of Department of Law,University of Leeds UK]

    In their teachings to Law-Students,they wrote the following:-

    [""The mens rea of Indecent Assault..The matter was considered by the House of Lords in Court where Lord Ackner,with whom the majority agreed,answered the certified question as follows:-

    "On a charge of Indecent Assault the PROSECUTION must prove (1) that the accused INTENTIONALLY assaulted the VICTIM
    (2) that the assault,or the circumstances accompanying the assault, are CAPABLE of being considered by right-minded persons as Indecent
    (3) that the accused INTENDED to commit such an assault as is referred to in # (2) above""]

    The Law-Lords continued by expressing the following:-

    They wrote, [""This suggests that,unlike assaults generally, RECKLESSNESS is NOT enough evidence! INTENTION is said to be required BOTH as to the assault AND the INDECENCY!""]

    So because Mr.Callwood was RECKLESS in his judgement,by going too FAR with a JOKE with his co-worker,you found that RECKLESSNESS to be sufficient evidence to Prosecute him CRIMINALLY; for,""Intentional Indecent Assault""?????????????

    And to Diminish the Evidence even more, the adult Victim waited for 30 long days to make an official report!

    But you took ""DAT"" evidence to Court????? NO DATE OF OFFENCE?????NO CRIME SCENE PHOTO?????NO RECENT COMPLAINT BY VICTIM??? You brought ""DAT"" kind of Evidence to Her Majesty's Court?????

    When I was in the system,I opposed it and I will oppose it again and I will say again [You LAWLESS people in authority, will cause innocent citizens of Her Majesty's BVI to go to prison,UNLAWFULLY!

    Callwood; Sue dem for MALICIOUS PROSECUTION!!!!!!!!

  • law of evidence (19/01/2014, 22:07) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
    Let us take this case further,and look at the international principles of [""Law of evidence""].

    Turn your pages to the Law-Book [""International Student Edition-ISE""] written by Chris Carr & John Beaumont:

    Legal qualification of Chris Carr [MA,BCL,University of Central Lancashire UK]

    Legal qualification of John Beaumont[LLM, Head of the School of Law,Leeds Metropolitan University UK]

    D.P.P, will you be so kind to join the "Legal Team" and other students,on the topic [""Burden and Standard of Proof""] in Criminal Prosecution:

    As you know D.P.P,I am against Crime in BVI society, but this continued Vexatious & Malicious "PERSECUTION" of Her Majesty's citizens must stop!

    So let us tell our BVI people about the [""Burden and Standard of Proof""] in Criminal Cases,as explained by the two LAW-lords, Carr & Beaumont:

    In a chapter of their book on "Law of evidence" they wrote,and I quote:-

    [""The general rule in Criminal cases is that the "Legal Burden' of proving every "element" of the crime charged is on the prosecution and remains there through out the trial-This is of course only in accordance with the notion that "he who asserts must prove"-Every person is presumed innocent until proved guilty,in a court of LAW-The general rule was laid down definitively by the HOUSE of LORDS in the case of "Woolmington vs DPP [1935] AC 462""]. All attorneys-at-law in the world,know of that case:

    Now tell me,according to this reliable news site,VINO,it is reported in the public news, that the victim testified,that from the blow to his private part[testicle] he felt pain! The victim didnt seem to have apprehended a feeling of embarrassment from [Indecency] after being touched on his private part:

    However,he was too embarrass to report the crime "which caused him physical pain" ,until after 30 days? The victim became courageous to report the crime-of-pain,[only after the defendant gave him a ticket and told him"one thing I know,ah born here] That's the evidence?

    So what are you trying to prove in court DPP?

    1. Is it common assault without indecency? or

    2. Is it indecent assault with bodily harm & pain? or

    3.Is it both "elements" in one charge under one section of law?

    What are looking for,sir; for the COP? A Criminal-conviction?!!

    VINO,let me take this opportunity on behalf of the many UK lawyers who read this news on this topic,and for you VINO,allowing me to exercise my Constitutional right to blogg on Legal Points without being VEX:

    Tomorrow,The USA,will be celebrating the Birth Day of Martin Luther King JR,a man who stood for justice.

    There are provisions under section 6 of the Police Regulations laws of the V.I,enacted under the Police Act,Cap 165-laws of the V.I, to Discipline police officers,whose behavior may have brought the force into Disrepute: If the officer did "reckless Act" what is alleged at the station,he must be disciplined:

    But you took a case from the [Police Station] from under section 37 of the police Act-disciplinary laws ,with "weak-he-say-he-say" [hearsay evidence] and put it before a public court of law,looking and searching for a Criminal-conviction? You call that Justice?? Today for Callwood, tomorrow for you!

    I have a dream,that one day,the unlawful "Persecution" of Her Majesty's Citizens will stop in the BVI.

    They ""Persecuted"" Mr. Alred Frett UNLAWFULLY! Now they are coming with more ""Persecution""?
  • FREE SUPACOP (20/01/2014, 10:03) Like (11) Dislike (1) Reply
    THIS CASE IS FOR INTERNAL HEARING. FREE SUPACOP NOW WITH AH YOU WICKED STYLE OF PROSECUTING LOCALS. THANKS TO THE BLOGGER FOR ENLIGHTENING US ON WHAT IS GOOD EVIDENCE FOR COURT.SET SUPACOP FREE.
    • Big C (20/01/2014, 19:24) Like (12) Dislike (1) Reply
      We need to put this man back to work .He really works well . Look at our drivers now doing what they want because there is no cop to look out for .stop this bull s---t and put a real cop on the road
    • keepn it real (21/01/2014, 05:03) Like (1) Dislike (4) Reply
      Locals can do wrong in every part of world except here. Why is that?
  • q tips (20/01/2014, 15:36) Like (4) Dislike (0) Reply
    well saw still cannot believe this thing is still in the public domain
  • shame on d.p.p office (20/01/2014, 19:36) Like (8) Dislike (0) Reply
    a witness for the prosecution gave such damaging evidence against the complainant, and you all still going ahead with this case? shame on ah you me son.
  • legal team read the V.I Constitution. (20/01/2014, 21:01) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    VINO;UK lawyers [ Queen's Council] are reading this case:

    thank you very much for this UPDATE on this [""KANGAROO CIRCUS""] on display in Her Majesty's court-house!

    Every Lawyer who read this case have bowed their head in Shame!

    They[C.O.P and D.P.P] chose to bring this MAKAKKWEE case to the Public:

    Where were the senior officers; the C.O.P when this KIND of evidence of [bad-words-at road town police station] was being given in court?

    Did I read the updated evidence clearly? The V.C wanted to SHOOT a POLICEMAN at Road Town Police Station? The V.C should have been charged for threatening the life of Her Majesty's police officer!

    A Crown's witness,who took an Oath to give evidence on behalf of the PROSECUTION, has told the court of this CONSPIRACY to [ to FABRICATE oral Evidence to Frame an innocent policeman], planning dates,to get it right, and the D.P.P having heard his own witness DAMAGE his case, BUT the DPP chose to continue with """DAT""" draammaar inside Her Majesty's Court?

    Shame! Shame!Shame!

    Let us read section 59 of the Virgin Islands Constitution Order 2007 to see where the D.P.P has POWER!

    SECTION 59 OF THE V.I CONSTITUTION STATES:-

    ["" (2) The Director of Public Prosecutions "D.P.P" SHALL have POWER,in any case in which he or she considers it DESIRABLE to do so---
    (c) To DISCONTINUE at any stage "BEFORE JUDGMENT" is delivered any such CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Instituted or Undertaken by HIMSELF or any other person or AUTHORITY""]

    That is the POWER of Her Majesty's V.I Constitution! Why didn't D.P.P use it.

    You mean to tell the Public,that after a Crown's Witness,called by the Prosecution, gave Evidence [Under Oath] which ""FAVORED the Defendant"" and DESTROYED the CREDIBILITY of the V.C, the D.P.P still continued the TRIAL?

    Oh I see! You TOO Shame to DISCONTINUE, in accordance with section 59 (2) (c) of the V.I Constitution?

    SUE DEM CALLWOOD-SUE DEM for MALICIOUS PROSECUTION and PERSECUTION:
  • we now see the light (21/01/2014, 06:10) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    the legal blogger like he see that was coming,that is bad justice.
  • Manabouttown (21/01/2014, 12:21) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply

    Pharaoh set the man free, Pharaoh Let my people go, and Pharaoh give the man his liberty. My people taking warning, we better do good. I do not see the needs for Laws in our country; let us live like the people in the Middle East. I am so ashamed of the system, every where a man goes he is in chain. A crime has been allegedly committed against an adult on the compound of a police station. The adult did not see it fit to report the matter, till after one month.

  • BVIslander (21/01/2014, 18:46) Like (0) Dislike (0) Reply
    what a false acusation


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.