Tales from the Courts Part X – John Doe v. Sgt Vernon Waithe

BU has received the following proceedings which should be of interest. The Complaint is part of a filed proceeding and in our view it falls into the public domain. However, BU will not comment on this matter, which has been adjourned until June 27, 2013 and is before Magistrate Deborah Holder.

Given that this matter is a criminal complaint against a serving police officer and given the growing international media attention directed at the Royal Barbados Police Force (RBPF) over the Crawford rape case among others as a result of incendiary comments of Commissioner Darwin Dottin, BU holds that this is a matter of public interest.

BU strongly suggests Magistrate Holder to act with haste and integrity now that this matter has commanded the attention of BU. The information age means that any nepotistic or biased tendencies will find their way into the international press.

We understand that the Complainant is acting in propria persona and therefore it is the duty of the court to assist them as far as it is able and cut them slack. IF BU is made to understand that the Complainant is harshly treated as Court Officers are wont to do in similar circumstances, we will not hesitate to leverage the international media connections and friendships at our disposal.

Please note BU has exercised the right to redact the document to conceal the name of the Complainant.

0 thoughts on “Tales from the Courts Part X – John Doe v. Sgt Vernon Waithe

  1. I won’t comment on the case except to say it’s good to see private citizens standing up for their rights against the men in blue.

    Now if only there was a functioning Police Complaints Committee………

  2. Oh shiiiite David redacted the complainant but not the accused……….LMFAO. I guess the Sargeant already proved guilty.

  3. @Enuff. It might be argued that the policeman is a public servant and, in light of the Crawford rape debacle, the actions of the police in general or particular are of national interest. In the Crawford case, we saw a long, drawn process of remand with the magistrate refusing to alleviate Mr Crawford’s lot, despite clear and abundant evidence that would permit this to be done. So the suggestion of bias on the part of the magistrate in favour of the police and the DPP is inescapable. Indeed, all magistrates and their links and bias towards the police must now be under scrutiny. And BU has placed this under scrutiny.

    Mr Crawford had the weight of the entire international press and Mr Andrew Pilgrim, as well as the financial support of the two rape victims and victims of Barbados’ police, on his side, as well as the weight of public opinion —– yet the magistrate did not alleviate his lot in the slightest and the magistrate had the authority to do so if they chose.

    In this case, the way I see it as reported is that here is a single individual who lacks the finance to retain counsel (although clearly counsel is advising him and doing so very well indeed) confronting “in propria persona” (which means representing himself) the financial and authorotative weight of the RBPF and their legal counsel.

    Given the clear tendency of magistrates to lean in favour of the police, the warning of BU is both clear and approriate and, in my view, in the best interests of the public and of justice. In such a case, the magistrate must not be a passive observer, but must actually make every effort to ensure that counsel for the police does not play tricks and take advantage of the plaintiff. The magistrate must, in effect, prevent legal tricks being used against the plaintiff so that the magistrate’s sole function can be achieved – the dispensing of JUSTICE!!!

    Let me put it to you this way. The Police are proved to have been involved in torture and cooerced confessions in the Crawford case. No commission if enquiry has been set up to deal with that and no investigation, so far as anyone knows, has been established to investigate this clear abuse of power. Rather, that jackass Dottin has said that the rape victims were mistaken – and cost Barbados millions in tourism revenue as a result of the international press outcry. Therefore, the police cannot just lay hands on people like that.

  4. DAVID-can you find out how many cases has been referred to the S G and the DPP by the C O P for directions against the COP and his staff and how many of these directions are still out standing ,and if any settlements were made ,

  5. Then the Police would be looking for a few good men to join their ranks, and wondering why the applicants are so few.

    Then they would want to know why members of the public are not forthcoming with information to help them solve cases. Or even the growing lack of respect for them. SMH

  6. The thing is, unless a specific law was broken, or if ‘security’ re taking a pciture with a phone, was the issue (general threat), there should have been no reason to object to the person holding his phone.

    In one office the other day, I saw a security guard giving a woman grief over ‘appropriate dress’.

    She was in a strap but sleeveless dress, long. It was elegant, all showing was her neck and shoulders.

    Idiotic and pompous behaviour, where ‘form is over substance’. That on top of having to go to different places to get different things signed, delivered.

    A bureaucratic and slothful way to conduct business, but we are worried about sleeveless clothes, phones on vibrate.

    Are we in a Muslim country?

    Problem is, those these know that we need passports etc…so we will ‘heel’.

    Give a little man a little power…..

  7. @crusoe

    The law of the Medes and that of the Persians

    On any given day bajans and others of my Caricom brethren can be seen traipsing up to Wildey where, like cattle, G4S security officers prod them like so many cattle in a slaughter house to the bulletproof glass of an empowered US Visa “God-is-dead-and-I-am-His-Replacement” officer

    You and I are made to relinquish our phones to troughs and given numbers through which we retrieve our various items post being subjected to the ignominy of their interviews.

    A poor black over zealous government security officer implements the same protocol for a phone and this complainant suddenly has a propiori rights or something that I in might old age can’t understand

    But just a second though, regarding that same ignoramus of a government officer, a few weeks back I was present while she made a black woman who was pregnant leave the building and go downstairs to buy a shirt to buy something to cover her shoulders but, when a white woman who was less scantily clad, sine breasts engorged with milk for soon to be born offspring came in, the hunkie was accorded right of passage.

    Some of the government security guards (and policemen) are true professionals e.g. the gentleman at the Foreign Affairs office but some are true 1-letter-removed-to-the-right BUNTS

  8. It will be interesting to see how and where this goes.I think the proper way to achieve the desired outcome,seeing the officer was in uniform, would’ve been to give the visitor a direct order which if not carried out becomes an arrestable offence.
    I find this roughness in our police officers both an embarrassment and a turn off because one must be careful to control one’s temperament when they begin to rave and rant with the spittle flowing freely.Generally,police officers are in need of proper training in interactive situations to know when and where and how and why;not to treat everyone with scant courtesy.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.