Legal counsel Arthur Holder has described as “malicious” a 2016 indictable charge leveled against a 30-year-old man, saying that the complainant in the matter had informed police that his client was not the one responsible.
Kareem Dentonia Bailey, of East Warrens Terrace, St Thomas is alleged to have used a firearm on July 28, 2016 when he did not have a valid licence and recklessly discharged the firearm in a public place which placed Jamar Hewitt in danger of death or serious bodily harm.
The accused was not required to plead to the indictable charges when he appeared before the District ‘A’ Magistrates’ Court this morning.
Holder told the court that his client was charged for an incident that occurred on July 28, 2016 and “he has never left the jurisdiction”.
The complainant in the case, according to the attorney, went to the police station and “indicated that this man never shot at him and the police refused to do anything. I can say that emphatically. So much so that is why he is here.”
Holder added: “The complainant Jamar Hewitt is here and wishes to say something to the court with respect to this matter.”
The attorney further argued that it was his belief that although the matter was indictable the magistrates’ court had jurisdiction to hear it given that preliminary inquires were no longer done. “You can take a deposition from the complainant with respect to this matter. I think it is in the court’s interest to so do.”
The defence lawyer further stated that the charges had two components.
“A is contingent on B . . . . A can’t stand without B,” Holder said. He further contended that if his client has been charged for endangering Hewitt’s life and Hewitt can say to the court that it was not Bailey and ventured to the police station to say that, “Then how can B stand?” he asked.
However, Station Sergeant Gibbons said while Holder could make his submission the court does not know the content of the initial statement Hewitt gave to the police. “Which statement should we believe?” the prosecutor asked.
But the defence attorney argued that a complainant could go to the police subsequent to their initial statement to say that they had made a mistake.
“The police can take that, and this court can take that if he says that. Because if there is no complainant in the matter, no recovery of any firearm, the firearm charge can’t stand.
“How almost four years after that the police have now found it possible to charge him for this? I want to say unreservedly that this is malicious. This is a court of justice and if the complainant wants to say something, the court has an inherent right to hear him and I am asking the court to do that.”
After taking Holder’s arguments into consideration the magistrate remanded Bailey to Dodds until May 11 to give police enough time “to bring forward information” on the matter. The magistrate also asked the complainant to return to court on that date.