Office of the President (OP) Press Officer Kwame McCoy was yesterday convicted of assaulting a man by gun-butting him, after an argument over election campaign posters.
At the end of a trial at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry found McCoy guilty of threatening and assaulting Clifton Stewart and ordered him to pay $70,000 in fines or face jail time.
A visibly-displeased McCoy, 36, who was present for the sentencing, later told the court that the ruling set a “dangerous precedent.”
In a loud tone, he declared that while he respected the court’s ruling, it reflected a dangerous precedent, since it meant that the police and complainants can conjure up all manner of stories that will result in defendants being liable for things for which they are innocent.
“I believe that this is a dangerous precedent!” he exclaimed.
The Chief Magistrate, however, told McCoy that he was “free to test and contest” the decision at a higher forum if he so desired. She cautioned him that it was his right to appeal her ruling if he so wished, “but this court has made its ruling in these matters.”
McCoy was given seven days within which to pay the fines. He indicated to the court that he did not have his “bag” with him, but would have paid the fines within an hour of his matter being dispensed with yesterday.
The offences were committed on October 25, 2011, during an argument on D’Urban Street, Lodge, in relation to the removal of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) posters by McCoy. During that argument, Stewart said McCoy threatened him and hit him over the head with a gun.
McCoy had been called upon to lead a defence and proclaimed his innocence in an unsworn statement to the court, saying that he was being targeted for his affiliation with the governing party.
His lawyer, Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos later challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and the evidence advanced during the trial, which was corroborated by a police witness who testified for the prosecution.
But Prosecutor Denise Griffith-Jacobis said that the case against McCoy has been made out beyond reasonable doubt with Stewart’s testimony, which was substantiated by a medical certificate. Griffith-Jacobis also pointed out that the defence had brought no one during the trial who disputed Stewart’s assault.
She argued that while the defence had challenged this evidence, it was not substantially discredited. Further, she noted that while McCoy’s gun had been lodged with the police at the time of the assault, it did not automatically mean that he could not have committed the assault with another firearm.
‘First offence’
McCoy was fined $50,000 with an alternative of two weeks imprisonment for the assault, and $20,000 with an alternative of two weeks imprisonment for the use of threatening language. The magistrate informed him that the assault charge carries a prison-term of six months but that the court had considered that it was his first offence and had decided to impose the fine instead with the alternative of two weeks imprisonment.
In handing down her decision at the 20-minute-long hearing, Magistrate Sewnarine-Beharry said that the court had to consider a number of issues, including whether McCoy was properly identified by the complainant, the weight it had to attach to McCoy’s unsworn statement, the credibility of his evidence and whether from the evidence led by the prosecution the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had committed the offences.
She announced that from reviewing the evidence, the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such McCoy had been found guilty of both charges. The court also took into consideration both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in handing down its decision.
The mitigating circumstances, the magistrate noted, were that the McCoy had no previous convictions, that he may have acted on impulse during the exchange of words with the complainant and that the injury the complainant sustained was mild.
The court also took into consideration McCoy’s age, in that he is taken to know the consequences of his actions and the type of weapon used to carry out the assault. These, the magistrate said, formed the aggravating circumstances.
The magistrate’s ruling was contained in a written presentation read to the silent courtroom which was packed to capacity with persons who paid rapt attention.
The decision was scheduled to be delivered at 9am yesterday but the proceedings were delayed as DeSantos was not yet present.
McCoy indicated to the court that his attorney “was on his way” and “would have arrived shortly,” causing the magistrate to stand the case down until the attorney’s arrival.
About 30 minutes later, however, the court began the proceedings as De Santos had still not arrived and McCoy’s update was again that his attorney “was on his way” and “would have arrived shortly.”
The Senior Counsel was, however, a no-show at yesterday’s hearing.
After declaring to the defendant that he had been found guilty of the charges levelled against him, Magis-trate Sewnarine-Beharry enquired from him whether he wanted an adjourned date to have his lawyer present when sentence was being handed down, or not. McCoy, however, told the court that it could go ahead with its sentencing yesterday in the absence of De Santos.
McCoy also faces another charge alleged assault of Natalia Ross and that matter has been fixed for September 19 for trial. The prosecution has since been ordered by the court to summon its witnesses for that date.
It is alleged that on October 25, 2011, he unlawfully assaulted Natalia Ross after an altercation over the placement of political posters in the area. At some point during the altercation, McCoy allegedly jumped into his vehicle and struck down Ross.
