Court News (12 and 13 April 2006)

 

COURT NEWS

 

By J. Brock (FINN)

 

In the Magistrate’s Court before Senior Magistrate Mrs. Claire Faulds on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 were Mr. Peter James Crowie, Mr. Adrian James Minnell and Mr. Henry Browning.  All three men had been accused of Affray contra to (section 3(1) of the Public Order Act 1986).  The incident for which they were accused happened on the 27^th of December 2005.

 

Mr. Browning had entered a guilty plea and both Mr. Crowie and Mr. Minnell pleaded innocent to the charge.

 

Mr. Browning was represented by Mrs. Alison Ingles and Mr. Minnell and Mr. Crowie were represented by Mr. Keith Watson.

 

People giving evidence were Mr. Phil Barker, Mr. Elvis McRae, Miss Terri Ann Ormond, Miss Christine Ormond, Mr. Philip Cant, PC Street, PC Dent, PC Cotter, Mr. Peter Crowie and Mr. Adrian Minnell.

 

The Prosecuting Officer, Mr. Philip DuBerry, put forward the Crown’s case by saying that there was a motive in that all three knew Ms. Sandra Henry and were friends with her.  After having been forcefully thrown out of Ms. Henry’s home, Mr. Crowie returned to Lookout Lodge where he spoke to Mr. McRae, Mr. Browning and Mr. Minnell.  All four men acted as one when Ms. Henry called stating that Mr. Barker had slapped her.

 

Mr. DuBerry continued that the Court knows an offence took place during which Mr. Barker was injured and that Mr. Crowie is most personally involved.  And, three of the four men acted together to teach Mr. Barker a lesson.  The “lesson” was such that anyone witnessing the scene would be frightened.  He accused the defendants of an unlawful approach in that they were in a vehicle at 0130hrs on a dark night when they approached Mr. Barker.  He asked the Senior Magistrate to take into account that though Mr. Barker was very drunk at the time, a blow to the head also makes the memory hazy.  The defendants gave no credible reason how the injuries to Mr. Barker occurred.

 

He went on to say that the force described by Mr. Crowie and Mr. Minnell was not reasonable or proportionate to the injuries that Mr. Barker suffered.  Mr. DuBerry found it incredible that the three men in the vehicle simply wanted to talk to Mr. Barker to make sure he did not go near Ms. Henry’s home.  He suggested that all three defendants acted on impulse to teach a lesson.  Pointing out that Mr. Crowie lied during the interview with PC Cotter and PC Ross, Mr. DuBerry asserted that both Mr. Crowie and Mr. Minnell were lying to protect themselves as they were aware they had committed a criminal act.

 

Mr. Barker had appeared to have been left unconscious as Mr. Crowie returned to see how he was getting on.  Mr. DuBerry reiterated that the injuries suffered by Mr. Barker and the testimonies of Mr. Crowie and Mr. Minnell did not add up.  Finally he said that seeing Mr. Browning pleaded guilty to the offence means that there was criminal intent.  He also drew attention to Mr. Minnell’s statements during interview that it was an incident that shouldn’t have happened and that it was quite possible that Mr. Crowie kneed Mr. Barker in the groin, though he didn’t see it happen.

 

Defence Attorney Mr. Keith Watson summed up by saying that the police should have been called after Ms. Henry was assaulted but no one is blessed with 20/20 foresight.  He also mentioned that Mr. Crowie had come clean in the interview and was now telling the truth, that he did not lie all the time.  Given the drunkenness of the victim - Mr. Barker - the prosecution only had the statements of the defendants to rely on.  No one admitted anything though there were some concessions made.  It was up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed and seeing that the victim could not remember much of what had happened there were doubts, even though Mr. Crowie and Mr. Minnell did remember what had happened.

 

Mr. Watson pointed out that there was a significant gap in time - from 2330hrs on the 26^th and 0100hrs on the 27^th that Mr. Barker was not present with the three defendants.  Seeing that he was truly intoxicated, anything could have happened to him. Mr. Barker had told a witness that he gave as good as he got and Mr. Minnell had stopped restraining Mr. Barker when he stopped fighting.

 

Mr. Crowie’s vehicle was being hit by Mr. Barker during the incident and it was reasonable for Mr. Crowie to get out of the car and stop any criminal damage.  On two occasions while Mr. Cant was helping Mr. Barker, Mr. Barker said he had been attacked by three squadies.  It was reasonable for the four men to go to Ms. Henry’s aid after the alleged slapping and if they had waited, it is not known what would have happened.  Also, it was not a criminal offence to lok for someone after dark in a vehicle or to make sure a person did not enter a property and hurt the occupant.

 

In conclusion Mr. Watson said that Mr. Barker did not refute his attack on Mr. Crowie and that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Barker’s version of events was true.

 

After considering the matter, the Senior Magistrate, Mrs. Claire Faulds, was concerned about a point of law regarding Mr. Browning’s guilty plea.  She asked the Prosecution and the Defence to look into the legislation to see if it was relevant to the case.  She adjourned the trial until 1430hrs on Thursday, 13 April 2006.

 

 

In day two of the trial of Peter Crowie, Adrian Minnell and Henry Browning the Senior Magistrate, Mrs. Claire Faulds, delivered her judgement against Mr. Crowie and Mr. Minnell - Mr. Browning already having pled guilty.

 

After Mrs. Faulds, the Prosecuting Officer Mr Philip BuBerry and Council for the defence Mr. Keith Watson attended chambers on Thursday morning the way forward with reference to Mr. Browning’s guilty plea was decided.  It was decided that Mr. Browning’s guilty plea pointed to the fact that an incident happened and not point to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Crowie or Mr. Minnell.

 

The Crown, however, proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Mrs. Faulds said that evidence showed Mr. Barker started the chain of events by man-handling Mr. Crowie and throwing him out of Sandra Henry’s home.  Raised voices heard were sufficient to keep the Ormond sisters inside their homes.  PC Street’s evidence showed that Mr. Barker was very, very angry.  Though Mr. Barker was drunk at the time, Mr. Crowie was proven, by a breath teat to have been sober at the time.  Mr. Crowie also tried to keep the facts of the case suppressed and was found to be lying at his first interview.  Finally, the extent of Mr. Barker’s injuries did not match up with the Mr. Watson’s argument of self defence.

 

A provisional date for sentencing was set for 1000hrs on Thursday, 25 May 2006. In the meantime, a pre sentence report would be prepared for Mr. Browning and antecedents produced for Mr. Crowie and Mr. Browning.

 

THE CROWN VS CHUN YING FISHERIES AND CAPTAIN YU TENG

 

In Magistrate’s Court at1045hrs on Thursday, 13 April 2006 Chun Ying Fisheries Ltd. of Taiwan and Captain Yu Teng of the Fishing vessel Ju Ying were charged with a breach of their licence conditions, in that the Master and Owner are responsible for the safe boarding and disembarking of Fisheries Officers. 

 

The incident for which the Captain and the Fishing company were charged occurred on 11 April 2006 during the Captain’s rest period when Officers from the Fisheries Department wanted to board the vessel for an inspection.  The pilot ladder which Mr. John Adams used to board the vessel was faulty and, when he was near the bottom the ladder broke, throwing him into the sea.

 

The Captain pleaded guilty to the charge.  Mr. DuBerry, who prosecuted the case, said that under the present legislation this was a Level 9 Offence and the maximum fine was £35,000.00.  He applied for £70.00 prosecution costs. 

 

In mitigation Mr. Kevin Kilmartin for the defence said that the ship had two pilot ladders and the crew mistakenly let down the weaker ladder.  The ladder had been purchased in Stanley three years ago and had been used 10 days ago during transhipping.  He also said the Company had lost three days’ fishing and that the log books were inspected and were in order.

 

The company only had the one ship and even though fishing was poor during the past years it continued to pay licence fees and support the Falklands economy.  Until now the ship and company had a blemish-free record.  It was an unfortunate accident and was not contrived for profit or to prevent the fisheries officer from doing his duty.

 

Had the accident happened when the new fisheries ordinance was in force it would be a Level 6 Offence and the maximum fine much less.

 

In sentencing Mrs. Faulds said she was concerned about health and safety atsea and it was fortunate that Mr. Adams was plucked out of the sea so quickly.  She asked how much the ladder cost and the answer came back that it was $400.00 or £300.00. 

 

She continued that it was the Captain’s duty to ensure that the equipment was in safe condition.

 

The Fishing Company was fined £3,000.00 and Captain Yu Teng was fined £300.00 with the prosecution costs were split between the Captain and the Company.