A four-year-old criminal matter against a man, who allegedly shot his mother during a dispute over fried fish, was dismissed by the High Court today after she opted not to give evidence.
Dwight Douglas Inniss, of Arch Hall, St Thomas – an outpatient of the Psychiatric Hospital – was facing September 21, 2016 charges of wounding with intent and use of a firearm. The weapon was never recovered.
Prior to today’s mention of the case, Dwight’s mother, Ruby Inniss, told the No. 2 Supreme Court she was no longer interested with proceeding with the case.
In response, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) Alliston Seale revealed that the decision had “significantly weakened the prosecution’s case” as it was related to the other outstanding charge of use of firearm.
“The court is well aware that, in certain circumstances, even though a complainant may indicate, he is no longer interested in pursuing the matter, there is other evidence which the Crown may use that will bolster the Crown’s case. The question is, in this particular file do we have that type of evidence?” the Deputy DPP told Justice Randall Worrell adding that having reviewed the file he was “challenged” to find such evidence.
He explained that a witness to the shooting would have been the “circumstantial evidence” needed, to possibly carry the matter forward in the absence of the complainant but that not the case. He said evidence showed the complainant lived in the lower section of a house while two other family members lived in the upper section. On the day of the alleged offence neither of them were at home.
“In those circumstances, without being able to fill the void, then the Crown is left with insufficient evidence to substantiate the Crown’s case of the use of a firearm and in those circumstances the Crown cannot proceed”.
The Deputy DPP however raised concern about the accused’s status as an outpatient of the Psychiatric Hospital and stated that initial prosecutor put forward the suggestion that an assessment be done. However, Seale submitted that such a move could only be done by the court “in the face of a conviction”.
The prosecutor then recalled dealing with a similar case which involved a mother and son, who was also an outpatient. The mother, the prosecutor disclosed, kept her son’s condition a secret from curious neighbors and he subsequently attacked her during an argument over bakes, killing her.
“I know we do have certain challenges as it relates to mental health issues [and] I understand the relationship between a parent and a son. Sometimes we don’t like these things to come out in the public’s domain but at the end of the day we have to be careful. It is not our duty, unfortunately, as the courts to control civil society outside of legal and criminal issues.
“What I fear is when these things turn the other way and everybody jump and say ‘but she had a matter in court with he and what happen’ and they give the impression that it is a failure of the system. But the system does not exist in isolation; the system has to exist with all hands coming together.
“Not that he can only become a threat to society but he can be an immediate threat to her living in the same house as her.
“But we have done all we possibly can in the circumstances and cannot proceed in the absence of the complainant’s evidence and there’s no other evidence to substantiate the existing charge of use of firearm,” Seale explained as he asked for the matter to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Defence counsel Denis Headley agreed with the submissions of the Deputy DPP.
Before dismissing the case Justice Worrell told the accused Inniss that it was not a question of him leaving the court and “things going back to normal”. The judge said he had an obligation to himself and by extension the wider society to continue taking his medication get the treatment that he needed.
