Chief Magistrate issues stern warning to lawyer

Chief Magistrate, Rechanne Browne had to issue a note of caution to lawyer, Michael Wyllie who was representing a client before her on a charge of criminal trespass.

She described Wyllie’s conduct in court as “offensive, discourteous and disrespectful.”

Wyllie was representing Devorn Baptiste of Arnos Vale and Georgetown who reappeared at the Serious Offences Court on April 17, where he was found guilty of criminal trespass.

After a full trial the Chief Magistrate found Baptiste guilty that on March 24, 2023 at Dorsetshire Hill, he entered the yard of Pamela Gibson with the intent to commit the offence of theft.

Wyllie made it clear that he was not in agreement with the magistrate’s decision.

Expressing his dissatisfaction, he highlighted his concerns about the identification photos of the defendant which he said was not done in accordance with the law. Wyllie said that “according to the law, it is not permissible to show beforehand to persons who are afterwards to be called as identifying witnesses, photographs of those persons whom they are about to be asked to testify.”

He also said that where the photos are used for the purpose of obtaining information, a series of photographs, not one or two, ought to be shown to the person who is required to give the information needed.

The lawyer told the magistrate that he had sent her and the prosecutor reference cases from the Court of Appeal where the law states that the police cannot show single photographs for identification purposes.

He also said that if the police shows a single photograph that it is prejudicial.

The magistrate told Wyllie that she was not aware of his submissions and she reminded him of the procedure in which supplementary submissions are to be made.

“People do not have money to appeal, so they have to live with these outrageous decisions; that is crazy, “ Wyllie charged.

Browne advised him that procedurally what should have been done was not done as it relates to the document, and the lawyer shouted, “I did.”

The magistrate told him “you didn’t do it here, we have a duty to make sure that the operations in the court are done properly, decently and in order. We have that obligation and it is an overriding duty that you possess.”

Wyllie then continued to chastise the police, and the magistrate told him that with his expertise as a former police officer he could possibly render assistance to the police. She added that he can contribute to the issues about which he is concerned as a way of contributing to the development of personnel “rather than pulling down the systems that are in place” and the system that he operates in.

When asked to present plea mitigation, Wyllie, continuing to display his displeasure said “this is a wrong decision, blatantly wrong decision, and I have to appeal the matter.” He further told the magistrate “ you are going against the law, I don’t understand that.”

The magistrate in response to Wyllie’s conduct said “your behaviour will border offensive shortly, and I might have to take a certain section in the criminal code.”

She further told him that he has to contribute to the orderly and proper conduct in the court.

“You have that overriding duty based on the standards of the profession, and your conduct cannot continue to be offensive, discourteous and disrespectful.” Magistrate Browne added, “your conduct is consistently of a similar manner and if you have nothing further to contribute to the mitigation I invite you to be silent.”

Wyllie responded, “be silent, you violate the law and I can’t answer that?”

The magistrate informed him that she observes the law when she makes her decisions and what he thinks is his opinion. She invited him to appeal her decision.

She also told him to be silent or she will take the necessary policing.

On April 5, the magistrate also had to give Wyllie a stern warning based on his conduct in the court, and on December,16 2022, High Court Judge Brian Cottle made it clear that Wyllie will not be allowed to appear before him at the High Court without first apologising for conduct deemed to be in contempt of court.

During his submissions, Prosecutor Renrick Cato was of the opinion that a custodial sentence should be imposed on Baptiste. He also noted that Baptiste had previous convictions for offences of a similar nature. He had been sentenced to prison for five years for burglary.

Baptiste asked the court to bond him or give him a suspended sentence.

After assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence, Baptiste was sentenced to eight months in prison. He had already spent 22 days on remand and this will be subtracted from his sentence.