Senator rearrested after magistrate dismisses all charges against her

All six charges against opposition senator Vynnette Frederick were dismissed yesterday at the Kingstown Magistrate’s Court.{{more}}

But two and a half hours later, Frederick was again in police custody.

Yesterday morning, magistrate Ricky Burnette agreed with an application made by Frederick’s attorneys to have the matters struck out, since the six amended charges laid against their client lacked details and particulars.

Shortly after the court’s ruling, Frederick exited the courthouse and could be heard saying “thank you,” as her father Bayliss Frederick, attorney Maia Eustace and Opposition Leader, Arnhim Eustace took turns hugging her.

Other family members and close friends of Frederick, gathered outside the courthouse, congratulated her.

“I feel satisfied that the magistrate did his research and ruled accordingly. I am just thankful right now. I am really pleased with the outcome and pleased with my team, “ Frederick told SEARCHLIGHT, as she made a call to her mother on her Blackberry smartphone.

Frederick was initially charged with three counts in September 2012.

She was charged with “that on January 10, 2011, at Kingstown, she did make a false declaration before Sonya Young, a magistrate, a person authorised to take a declaration upon a matter of public concern, under circumstances that the false declaration, if committed in a judicial proceeding, would amount to perjury.”

Frederick was also charged with making false declarations on June 16, 2011 and May 23, 2012, before Faye James.

On February 15, 2013, three further charges were brought against Frederick. She was then charged with swearing falsely before Sonya Young and Faye James, persons authorised to take the oath on the same dates as the first set of charges.

However, at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on April 30, the charges were amended to read that on January 11, 2011, Frederick made a false declaration to a private criminal complaint before Sonya Young, a magistrate, a person authorized to take a declaration. She was also charged that on the same date, she falsely swore to a private criminal complaint before Sonya Young.

She was also charged that on June 16, 2011, she falsely swore to an affidavit and made a false declaration before Faye James, and that on May 23, 2012, she swore falsely to an affidavit and made a false declaration before Faye James.

The charges stem from a judgment handed down by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of Appeal on May 31, 2012, which indicated that Frederick intentionally gave evidence which was untrue, in a complaint she brought against Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves, following the 2010 general elections.

In his ruling, Burnette said, “It is quite clear that information must give sufficient particulars of the offence being charged. Requirements for a fair hearing require defendants to be clearly informed of what is alleged and have reasonable time for preparation of their defenses…,” Burnette ruled.

Fredrick’s counsel, Andrew Pilgrim, in his application at the Georgetown court, submitted that the crown, led by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Colin John, had an obligation to tell the defendant what she had sworn and what she had declared.

Pilgrim further drew to the court’s attention, Section 8 of the constitution, which states that every person charged with a criminal offence, shall be informed of the nature of the offence charged.

The Assistant DPP sought leave to amend the charges, which the court allowed him to do.

Pilgrim had further submitted that the amendments made to the charges, fell short of what was required in regard to particulars.

John said the defendant ought to have known the charges she was facing and noted that she was in a “very good” position to instruct her lawyers as to the charges she was facing since witness statements were disclosed to the defence.

He assured the court that Frederick would not have an unfair trial as a result.

The magistrate, further in his ruling, stated that he agreed with the submissions made by Pilgrim that the charges lack adequate particulars, putting the defendant in a position to properly put forward her defence to the court.

“The Assistant DPP’s attempt to amend the charges, in my view, were inadequate and did not address the particulars. I find the information is defective on its face; even after providing an opportunity to the Crown to put its house in order. The issue is, can the court proceed on defective information after giving the Crown an opportunity to amend?”

“…Learned Counsel Andrew Pilgrim has urged the court to strike out the charges and it would seem to me this is the correct thing to do at this stage, as the Crown’s house is not in order. Having regard to my findings that the charges amended by the DPP to be still defective, the court has no choice but to strike out the matter. The charges before the defendant are struck out and she is dismissed,” Burnette ruled.

An elated counsel, Andrew Pilgrim, told SEARCHLIGHT that the right decision was made in the matter.

“I was very impressed with the magistrate’s scholarship in particular. It clearly shows he researched the points and he’s concerned with a lot of things a judge must be concerned with. He ruled accordingly and we are very happy with the decision,” he said.

Another one of Frederick’s attorneys, Trinidadian Keith Scotland, said, “The learned magistrate gave the Assistant DPP an opportunity to amend and I think that was very critical with the factual matrix of this case,” he said.

He however stated that he did not want to say much more on the matter at this stage.

Meanwhile, the Assistant DPP, who wished not to say much on the matter, said the magistrate made his decision and that there are “other options that will be explored.”

It seems that it took less than two hours for those options to be explored, for while Frederick was having lunch with her relatives, friends and attorneys at the Oleander restaurant at Cemetery Hill, she was rearrested by police.

Frederick’s lawyer Andrew Pilgrim said that for over an hour, the officers from the Special Services Unit (SSU) and Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the police force did not identify themselves. He said when they did, they said they were arresting Frederick for perjury.

“We are very, very disappointed, but we are going to the police station and see what is it they want. They have no warrant, no documentation,” Pilgrim said.

Keith Scotland, another of Frederick’s attorneys, questioned what document do the police have from the court to arrest their client.

“She was not in the process of committing any offence and as we understand the law in St Vincent and the Grenadines, if there is a warrant issued by the court of law, they have not showed us any documents indicating she has been charged again. They just forcibly took her,” Scotland said.

Frederick was placed in police transport P2871, while family members and friends, including Leader of the Opposition Arnhim Eustace, stood around looking visibly distraught. Attorney Samantha Robertson stood crying as the vehicle drove away. The vehicle carrying Frederick was followed by another police vehicle T8243.

Up to press time, Frederick was still in custody and no charges had been laid.