Court restricts accused rapist’s use of social media

by Tameisha Sobers

Just days after a rape accused was warned to avoid social media, Anthony Edison James returned before the same court after making a viral video about his court case.

On Monday, Anthony Edison James, 56, No. 4 Lower Regency Park, Christ Church appeared before Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes in the No. 1 District “A” Magistrates’ Court charged that on January 4, 2020, he had sexual intercourse
with the female without her consent, knowing that she did not consent to intercourse or was reckless as to whether she consented.

It is alleged that he raped the 19-year-old woman after luring her to a location “under the guise of a job opportunity”. Bail was granted in the sum of $7000 and he was warned to stay away from the complainant and refrain from contacting her on social media.

James was also ordered to report to District “A” police station every Tuesday and Saturday before noon and
to surrender his passport.

Today, prosecutor Sergeant Victoria Taitt referred to videos apparently made after James’ court appearance on Monday. In one video, in which Taitt said he appeared to wear the same shirt he wore on his court appearance, James sang the song with the lyrics “I’m locked up they won’t let me out”.

Another video showed him addressing himself as “favorite uncle” and saying he is on a complete gag order from the court. In that video, said to be trending on Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, James mentioned the magistrate, the investigator by number and name and his attorney Arthur Holder.

Taitt said though he may not have directly communicated with the complainant, his actions appeared to be taunting
and could be deemed as “indirect communication with the complainant”. The videos, she added, had left the complainant distraught.

According to Taitt, in the initial objection to bail, the psychological issues of the complainant were mentioned “and now this has taken a toll on her”. As a result of the videos the complainant has withdrawn herself from all social media platforms.

The prosecutor said James was seeing orders of the court as a “joke”.

“We tend to hear of the rights of the accused but what of the rights of the virtual complainant in this matter who the court heard was suicidal,” she argued, adding that James had total disregard for warnings and conditions of the court.

She said the court could not be seen as a mockery and asked for bail to be revoked.

James told the court that he thought he should say something…”to give people the understanding that I am taking this thing serious”.

The accused said he saw negative posts on social media platforms including Naked Departure; referring to social media as “the wild, wild west”.

He explained that the video of him singing “I’m locked up” was an old one he made during the COVID lockdown.

James told the magistrate that he “knew people were concerned” and he felt the need to address the “talk”.

“I wanted people to understand the seriousness about it; people who like me and may want to comment and all those who out there and hiding behind an anonymous account and saying negative things,” he said.

Dismissing James explanations as “foolishness” Weekes said the order was specific to the complainant and approaching her through social media. However, he said, “constitutionally” he could not get into promotion of business over social media.

However, he said if James had concerns about persons attacking his reputation he had the option of taking action through his lawyer.

“You can’t stop people from saying what they want because as long as you are charged it’s a matter of public record which the media can publish. In these societies everybody and the public will presume you are guilty but that is the nature of it… but it does not mean that you can go and engage anybody in that, that is foolishness,” Weekes stated.

The Chief Magistrate told James that he was not helping his case by engaging people on social media.

He then made a further order prohibiting James from engaging social media other than to advertise and promote business.

He said if Holder wanted to bring an action challenging the prohibition he could do so.

However, the court said it could not “sustain any remand based on law” but issued another warning.

James returns to the court on April 19, 2021. (TS)