Eight Young Men Remanded in Dodds Following Allegations of Violent Disorder and Robbery

“I don’t understand how this can be an objection for bail . . . . I am asking the court to disregard that objection . . . . We are a court of law, a court of evidence; we are not bound by feelings . . . they may do this, they may do that . . . . The undisputed fact is a fight involving young men broke out outside a strip club during the course of which somebody is saying that they are missing things. No one is charged with assault or wounding . . . . The factual matrix is important,” Mitchell-Gittens argued.

The defence attorney also submitted that the charges were not so serious that her clients should be denied bail at this time as the two charges stemmed from one set of circumstances.

“The denial of bail ought not to be a punishment . . . . My clients are all Bajans with fixed places of abode,” she said, adding that Carter and Gibbons were not known to the court and had no pending charges. Connell, she admitted, was on bail but had been adhering to all his conditions.

In his submissions, Senior Counsel Michael Lashley who represents Perch argued that the prosecution could not prove that his client had interfered or would interfere with witnesses or the complainant and he asked the court not to take that submission into consideration.

He insisted that his client was a proper candidate for bail as he met all the criteria and would adhere to any conditions imposed.

Attorney-at-law Simon Clarke, who represents Carrington, adopted some of the submissions made by Mitchell-Gittens and Lashley.

He said while his client was on bail for a serious matter, he had no prior convictions and had been adhering to all conditions imposed. Clarke added that many of the grounds for

objections put forward by the prosecution could not be substantiated.

Meanwhile, defence lawyer Ken Mason also strenuously argued for bail for his clients Yearwood and Eastmond, adding that the prosecutor’s call for a cooling-off period could not be determined by the prosecution and was not a part of the Bail Act.

He, too, said his clients were proper candidates for bail and were willing to comply with any conditions.

After hearing the submissions, however, Chief Magistrate Weekes pointed out that robbery of any kind was a serious allegation.

“Robbery by eight accused . . . must be a serious thing . . . . The nature of the charge where you have an allegation of eight men robbing one man has to be seen as very serious. At this time, this court will not exercise its discretion in favour of the eight accused. Remanded until October 3 on both charges,” he ruled.