Case against Senator Frederick is an abuse of process – Defence lawyer

When the case involving Opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) Senator Vynnette Frederick came up for hearing on Wednesday, it was adjourned to November 25, without the substantive matter being heard. {{more}}

However, according to Andrew Pilgrim, one of Frederick’s attorneys, when the case resumes in two weeks’ time, that should be the day that the magistrate makes a ruling on the matter.

When the parties appeared in court on Wednesday, at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court, the prosecution failed in its attempt to secure an adjournment in the matter.

Magistrate Rickie Burnett denied the application based on the grounds that both parties had initially agreed upon the date mentioned.

He however adjourned the day’s proceedings to 1 p.m.

When the case resumed, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Colin John said that four prosecution witnesses were present, and while he was prepared for the trial to go on, he was asking that the court’s proceedings be suspended, until an appeal, which had been filed, had been heard.

The defence claimed however, that the appeal that had been filed was contrary to what they had been hearing before and that they were not aware of an appeal that had been filed. They subsequently made a written submission, providing copies to the prosecution and magistrate.

In their submission, the defence made two points – the first being that it was unlawful to have someone stand trial for charges for which they were previously acquitted and the second that the case was an abuse of process.

Defence counsel Keith Scotland, in presenting the submission to the court, explained that it was important for the submission to be taken into consideration.

He further detailed the charges and dates they were brought against Frederick, saying that “If a person who has been tried in a court of proper jurisdiction and has been acquitted or convicted, while such decision cannot be reversed or set aside, the person shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence.”

Scotland explained that the defence had analysed the charges, and after careful examination, concluded that the charges brought in April and those after Frederick’s re-arrest amounted to the same charges.

“We say that if the test is, are the charges the same or similar? The response would have to be yes, and under those circumstances, the accused was already acquitted of the said charges,” Scotland told the court.

“And if the charges are the same, then they cannot be brought back again,” he continued.

“And this is what the prosecution is seeking to do.”

In relation to the claim of abuse of process, Scotland, a Trinidadian, argued that the matters were not founded on any new evidence.

“The July charges, they are founded on the same facts as the April charges and to proceed on these charges will in effect lead to an abuse of power,” he argued.

Earlier this year, in July, Frederick was slapped with nine charges, hours after she was cleared of six criminal charges at the Kingstown Magistrate’s Court.

The first six of the nine new charges were brought under Section 96 of the Criminal Code, Chapter 171 of the Revised Edition of the Laws of SVG 2009, and are similar to the six she faced previously, except that they now include particulars.

The first two charges are that she made a false declaration and swore falsely to a private criminal complaint on January 10, 2011, before Chief Magistrate Sonya Young that “On Sunday, August 29, 2010, at Park Hill the Honourable Prime Minister Dr. Ralph E. Gonsalves said of and concerning me among other things that my father Bayliss Frederick send me away as a girl and I came back as a boy”, under circumstances that the false declaration, if committed in a judicial proceeding would have amounted to perjury.

She was further charged that she made a false declaration and swore falsely on May 23, 2012, before Faye James, a person authorised to take a declaration, to wit, “I listened to the tape and when the Honourable Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves made the comments I heard the persons in attendance shouting the words ‘lesbian’, she love woman amongst other things,” under circumstances that the false declaration, if committed in judicial proceeding would have amounted to perjury.

She was further charged that on June 16, 2011, she made a false declaration and swore falsely before Miss Faye James, a person authorised to take a declaration, to wit, “What is more troubling, is that during the period of a pregnant pause members of the electorate who attended the political meeting where the words said, stated and shouted lesbian”, under the circumstances that the false declaration, if committed in a judicial proceeding would have amounted to perjury.

The senator now also faces three new charges.

The first states that on January 10, 2011, at Kingstown and within the first magisterial district, with intent to mislead the court, she fabricated evidence to wit, “by swearing to a statement before Sonya Young, Chief Magistrate”, saying “On Sunday, August 29, 2010, at Park Hill, the Honourable Prime Minister, Dr Ralph E. Gonsalves said of and concerning me among other things, that my father Bayliss Frederick send me away as a girl and I came back as a boy.”

She is also charged, that on May 23, 2012, she fabricated evidence to wit, “by swearing before Mrs Faye James, saying, “I listen to the tape and when the Honourable Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves made the comment, I head persons in attendance shouting the words ‘lesbian’, she love woman, amongst other things.”

The ninth charge is that on June 16, 2011, with intent to mislead the court, Frederick fabricated evidence by swearing to an affidavit before Faye James saying, “What is more troubling is that during the period of a pregnant pause, members of the Electorate who attended the political meeting where the words were said, stated and shouted out ‘lesbian’.”

The last three charges were brought under section 101(a) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 171 of the laws of SVG 2009.

Burnett had dismissed the six charges Frederick had initially faced, ruling in favour of an application by Frederick’s attorneys Keith Scotland and Andrew Pilgrim that the charges their client faced, lacked particulars and details.

But shortly after she was released by the court, police officers from the Criminal Investigations Department and Special Services Unit re-arrested Frederick while she was having lunch with her family, attorneys and friends at the Oleander Restaurant at Rose Place, Kingstown. (DD)