Conductor remanded over strong-arming of police officer

A minibus conductor accused of wringing a police officer’s hand and fingers behind her back while she was executing her duties was yesterday remanded to prison when he appeared before Magistrate Hazel Octave-Hamilton.

It is alleged that on August 16 at Georgetown, 19-year-old Curtis John unlawfully and maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm on police officer 21399, Sharon Fraser, acting in the execution of her duties.

The teenager was not required to plead to the indictable charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm when it was read to him by the magistrate at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.  

Further, John, of 46 Urquhart Street, Georgetown was arraigned on a charge of obstructing a peace officer.
He denied that on the same day he obstructed Fraser, a police officer acting in the execution of her duties.
Attorney-at-law Adrian Thompson who represented the accused said that on the day in question the police officer was trying to “get him [John] out of the way,” and in the process one of her fingers bent back.

The magistrate, however, pointed out to the lawyer that the injury sustained by the virtual complainant (VC) seemed to have affected not “just one finger” since the visible bandage on Fraser’s hand was wrapped around several of her fingers.

Thompson then posited that the other fingers were also wrapped only because they had to support the injured one.
The magistrate said that the court was not going to speculate on the specifics. She asserted that a trial will be conducted into the matter when  the necessary medical certificate will be presented to the court.

Thompson then argued that the charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm levelled against his client was a heavy one.
In his address to the court, police sergeant Lionel Harvey said that after obstructing the officer from performing her duties, the accused bent her fingers and hand behind her back which caused it to be fractured in the process, after which he made good his escape.

The prosecution subsequently objected to the accused being granted bail, citing that there is a likelihood he may not return to court to stand trial as he had escaped after the incident and had to be pursued by public-spirited citizens and police.
Counsel in an unsuccessful bid to secure his client’s pre-trial liberty posited that John has no antecedents, poses no risk of flight, has a fixed address and has been cooperating with police investigations.

The magistrate subsequently told both the prosecution and defence to reserve additional details of the case for the trial.
John was then remanded to prison and his matter  transferred to Court One for October 26.

Around the Web