Latest update December 24th, 2024 4:10 AM
Latest News
- A race to the bottom: Some countries are prepared to give away value, rather than fight to retain it
- EPA waives environmental study for construction, installation of transmission lines and substations for gas plant
- Gaza toddlers got the polio vaccine, then an Israeli bomb took their legs
- $205M Mahaicony Magistrates’ Court commissioned
- Second powership switched on
Three charges against James Bond dismissed
Magistrate Hazel Octive-Hamilton on Tuesday dismissed three charges brought against attorney-at –law, James Bond, after the complainants in the matter revealed that they no longer wished to pursue the matter.
Bond, who was represented by Defence Counsel, Patrice Henry, was alleged to have assaulted Adrian Wilman, causing him actual bodily harm. He was also charged for allegedly damaging Wilman’s property and using threatening language towards Rawle Stephens, Wilman’s friend.
James Bond
Wilman related that he had given the police a statement claiming that he wished not to offer evidence in the matter. As such, his matter was dismissed while Stephen, who had not prior to the court hearing related his position in the matter, was ordered to pay $5,000 for wasting the court’s time.
Subsequently, a policewoman who told the court that she was investigating the assault and threatening language charge, claimed she had no knowledge of the damage of property matter brought against Bond. After being asked by the magistrate to write a statement for the charge, she related that she could not, since she did not institute the charge. She said she was only ordered to swear to the information.
Stephens, however, seemed puzzled when he was told about the fine. He asked for an audience with the court and related that he had not made a claim against Bond. He said he went to the police station as a witness on his friend’s behalf, but surprisingly, after leaving the station with the notion that his friend no longer wanted to pursue the charges, he was called by the police and told to be in court. He claimed that he did not know about the court procedures, and was now hearing that he was a complainant in one of the matters.
Stephens was still ordered to pay the fine. He was advised by the court that ignorance of the law was no excuse.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
This is our city
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- The City of Georgetown is stink, dirty and disordered. It is littered with garbage, overwhelmed... more
Breaking the Chains of Poverty: A need for political will
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The year 2024 has underscored a grim reality: poverty continues to be an unyielding... more
Weekend Cartoon
