Israel Bahadoor entering the courtroom on October 11, 2012. Photo: VINO/staff

The two men, who are jointly charged with allegedly committing a reckless and negligent act and also with harbouring an unregistered dog, were informed by the court that the Virtual Complainant (VC) in the matter was still unavailable due to technical issues with accessing a video link at her current location in France.

Crown Counsel Sarah Benjamin explained that a video link request was sent to France earlier but no response had been forthcoming and as a result of this she needed more time to proceed with the case. She further related that the VC would be located in Arizona, USA between November 1-7, 2012 and suggested this would be the most convenient time to have her evidence done by video link. 

Defence attorneys Herbert Mckenzie, who appeared for Brathwaite, and Patricia Archibald-Bowers, who appeared for Bahadoor, both insisted that these dates were inconvenient for them.

Magistrate Richards, however, expressed that the date would be set according the VC’s availability. She said that the case had been prolonged long enough and it was necessary to remove it from the court’s list as soon as possible. She then advised counsels to have someone represent their clients if they could not be available.

The accused were then advised to return to court on November 5, 2012.

Previous appearance

When the men last appeared before the court on October 11, 2012, there were some terse exchanges as Crown Counsel Sarah Benjamin initially made a request for an adjournment on the basis of not being in possession of the notes of evidence.

Magistrate Tamia Richards quickly interjected to say that she didn't understand how that could be the basis of the request put before the court.

Ms Benjamin earlier said that the matter was set for retrial and she had written to the court requesting the notes of evidence. Defence lawyer, Herbert McKenzie she said, was also provided with a copy of the request.

Magistrate Richards then corrected Ms Benjamin, noting that the trial was restarted and was not a re-trial as she referred to it.

The VC in the matter, the court was told, remained overseas for the time being and it was noted that there were issues experienced previously with arranging a time for doing a video link with the her.

Magistrate Richards related that the Crown was to be blamed for the recent delays being experienced in the matter. She added that the court was annoyed at the progress or lack thereof being made by the Crown and was especially concerned about the files being shifted around from one person to the next in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Mr McKenzie then sought to offer a chronology of events for the case and stated that even though it was a serious matter, it was also a summary matter and did not deserve to be dragged on for four years. The defendants had been before the courts since early 2009 after the matter had occurred in 2008.

Amid the shifting of files between counsels and the issue of the matter being transferred from a previous magistrate, who has since left the territory, the matter has had to be adjourned on several occasions. The unavailability of the VC to provide testimony, either in person or by video link over the course of the proceedings, had also stymied efforts to have the matter resolved speedily.

Mr Mckenzie had requested that the matter be thrown out for want of prosecution while noting that the date had marked the sixth sitting of the year for the matter.

Crown Counsel Benjamin told the court that the VC was still interested in the matter and this was personally communicated to her by the VC. She explained that if necessary she would employ the use of the Evidence Act to have the VC’s evidence heard before the court.

After listening to arguments from both sides, Magistrate Richards said the delays were unacceptable and the shifting of files in the DPP’s office could not be overlooked. She added that the defendants were entitled to trial in a reasonable time-frame but there were issues that still needed to be ventilated in the matter. As such she ruled against the request for a dismissal and said a short date would be granted for adjournment.