Lawyer argues for discontinuation of case against teacher accused of obstructing PM

A lawyer has argued for the discontinuation of a case brought against a teacher who is alleged to have obstructed the Prime Minister from entering the House of Assembly while a protest was taking place in Kingstown.

When teacher and activist Adriana King first appeared before the Kingstown Magistrate’s Court to answer to her charge in 2021, her charge read that she obstructed Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves from proceeding to the House of Assembly.

However, when she re-appeared before the court for her case, the charge was amended to read the attempted obstruction of the Prime Minister.

Last Wednesday, October 25, when King appeared at the Kingstown Magistrate’s Court before Magistrate John Ballah to begin her trial, a third amendment was made to the charge.

King is now charged that on August 5, 2021 at Kingstown, being a stranger with intent to commit an offence, obstructed Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines and member of the House of Assembly from coming to the precincts of the House of Assembly.

“Today is October 25 2023, my client has been on half pay, two years later the Prosecutor is going to come today to ask for a third amendment to this political charge,” defence lawyer Kay Bacchus-Baptiste said, while calling it an “abuse of process”.

Bacchus-Baptiste said that based on the guidelines of the Chief Justice, a matter that has been brought before the court and has not been dealt with after six months should be struck out.

However, Prosecutor Renrick Cato rebutted that this matter has had a number of adjournments, and they have not all been the fault of the prosecution.

“Counsel has sent a number of letters to this court asking for adjournments, and to shift the blame on the prosecution for the matter to be before the court for this length of period…I think it’s unfair to the prosecution.”

But, Bacchus-Baptiste argued that it does not matter why the case was being adjourned.

“I mean if it was seven months or eight months, I would not be taking this stand, but we’re talking about two long years and they are not ready,” she said, referring to the “significant” amendment to the charge the Prosecution has made.

Still, Cato said that the prosecution’s witnesses are ready for the case, but Bacchus-Baptiste remained firm that in light of the sudden changes to charge, “We cannot proceed.”

Ballah agreed with her that “the wording changes the charge,” and “it would cause some embarrassment” to Baptiste if the trial proceeds with the sudden changes that had been made.

He said that he is also mindful of the period of time that the matter has been before the court.

Ballah therefore gave Cato and Bacchus-Baptiste a deadline of the end of November to submit arguments as to why the matter should or should not be struck out in light of the given circumstances.

On December 13, 2023, the magistrate will make his final decision on whether this charge against King would be dropped or if the trial will proceed.

The maximum penalty for committing such an offence is a fine of $1,500 and six months imprisonment.