Traffic case against magistrate to continue

Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys is expected to appear in court today for the continuation of the traffic cases against him.

In his submissions on January 6, Gilhuys’ attorney, Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos said “It is strange that only when the prosecution wants a statement to arrest my client that they can find the witnesses but when these witnesses have to testify they are missing”. He made the statement after Prosecutor Denise Griffith told the court that the police could not locate either of the two witnesses in the case.

In October Gilhuys was charged with being a careless driver, an unlicensed driver, failing to produce a driver’s licence, having an uninsured motor vehicle, having an uncertified motor vehicle and having an unlicensed motor vehicle. The charges were brought against him shortly after he had gotten into an accident with a bus on October 2 at Mandela Avenue.

Gilhuys was placed on self-bail after pleading not guilty to the charges. He was then ordered to appear in court on October 31 after he had allegedly failed to produce valid documents for motor vehicle PLL 4282. The documents submitted to the court were said to be for a vehicle with licence plate number PLL 4582. The prosecution had requested that the file be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for advice. De Santos had objected saying he’d never heard of the prosecution sending files to the DPP for consultation “when these documents emanated from the government of Barbados and in some cases even the police.” Since then the attorney has said that he had provided the court with valid documents that prove that Gilhuys had not committed the alleged offences.

Griffith during the court hearing said she had received advice from the DPP but there was no indication whether or not the case should be pursued, rather “the DPP only highlighted certain things.” Following this the court was told that the police could not locate the driver of the bus and the passenger who had been injured in accident.

In October when the case had started, De Santos said that the vehicle mentioned in the charge was initially registered as PLL 4282 but it was changed to PLL 4582 and all the consequential changes that were required for that alteration in the circumstance were properly done. As regard the charge that Gilhuys was an unlicensed driver, De Santos had submitted a document said to be a copy of his client’s licence which also noted that the licence was in force in June 2007 and will expire on the corresponding date in 2010.

The attorney had then asked if the prosecution intended to continue with the said charge and in response Griffith had said after the defence contests all the charges she would reply.

Regarding the charge that Gilhuys had operated an uninsured vehicle De Santos has submitted a document said to be the insurance for vehicle PLL 4282 which had been cancelled when the registration number had changed to PLL 4582 and a new policy was in force with the new registration number.  Griffith then told the court that on Gilhuys’s earlier appearance in court the documents presented were said to be related to the vehicle number PLL 4582 and not PLL 4282.

In relation to the revenue licence, De Santos had told the court that the licence receipt and the adjustments were made for the change of the licence number at that time. He had also noted that the only outstanding charges to be dealt with were the careless driving and the failure to produce a licence on request.

Around the Web