Selvin Chinnery pleaded guilty to being armed with an offensive weapon but told the court he fired a nail gun at another man in self defence. Photo: VINO

Chinnery, 42, of Jost Van Dyke pleaded guilty to being armed with an offensive weapon but told the court he had fired the weapon in self defence after the Virtual Complainant (VC) allegedly tried to run him over with his own car.

According to the allegations, Chinnery had discussion with the VC in the matter in relation to having his [Chinnery’s] car sold and the VC reportedly drove off with his car after he told him not to and Chinnery allegedly fired the nail gun in his direction.

The prosecution, represented by Senior Crown Counsel Valston Graham and defence, represented by attorney Marie Lou Creque were at first scheduled to embark on a Newton hearing after the prosecution declined to accept the facts as given by the defendant during a previous hearing.

A Newtown hearing occurs if, following a guilty plea, the factual dispute between prosecution and defence versions is so different that it affects the appropriate sentence in the case. The court must then hear evidence on the disputed points.

The Newton hearing is similar in form to a mini-trial. The prosecution is first required to call evidence in relation to the matters in dispute, and the defence will then call evidence to support its version of the facts. The burden of proof lies upon the prosecution, which must prove its assertions of fact beyond reasonable doubt.

Graham at first declined to proceed with the hearing but after Magistrate Richards indicated that there was continued disagreement with the facts, he conceded that it was a necessary course of action. “There is no purpose going back and forth, let’s set a date for the Newton hearing and proceed from there,” Graham stated.

The matter will next be heard on October 14, 2013.

See previous story posted July 22, 2013:

JVD man allegedly shoots at other with nail gun

- tells court act was done in self defence

ROAD TOWN, Tortola, VI – Selvin Chinnery, 42, told the Magistrate’s Court on July 19, 2013 that he shot at a man with a nail gun because the man had tried to run him over with his own car.

The defendant, a resident of Jost Van Dyke, pleaded guilty to being armed with an offensive weapon. He was represented by attorney Marie Lou Creque.

According to the allegations, Chinnery had discussion with the Virtual Complainant (VC) in the matter in relation to having his (Chinnery) car sold and the VC reportedly drove off with his car after he told him not to and Chinnery allegedly fired the nail gun in his direction.

A report was later made to Police and the defendant allegedly informed officers that he threw away the nail gun. Charges were later brought against him.

The VC was reportedly charged separately in the matter.

Senior Magistrate Tamia Richards commented that the defendant likes things with triggers when Senior Crown Counsel Valston Graham announced that something was known against the defendant. According to court records, Chinnery had a previous conviction for keeping a firearm without a licence.

Creque told the court in mitigation that the defendant readily confessed his role in the affair.

Chinnery then stated, “I’m not saying that I was right for firing the nail gun.” He then explained that the VC took his vehicle, drove off and spun it around and headed straight for his direction.

He further alleged that the VC stopped speaking to him because he (VC) wanted him to sign a paper that allowed him (VC) to go with the defendant’s vehicle but he refused.

The prosecution said it would not accept the defendant’s version of events as his statement indicated that he should have pleaded not guilty instead. “There is a line of defence open to Mr Chinnery,” Graham stated.

The matter was adjourned for a decision on September 13, 2013.