Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:11 hours 59 min ago
Matter listed for two courts...
PM’s case thrown out
Published: 15 Oct 2009
Natasha Cumberbatch leaves the Port-of-Spain
Magistrates’ Court yesterday, after her private
complaint against Prime Minister Patrick
Manning was dismissed. PHOTO: Keith Matthews
A scheduling mix-up at the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court resulted in the dismissal of a private criminal complaint against Prime Minister Patrick Manning by 36-year-old Natasha Cumberbatch, yesterday. Manning appeared through his attorney Michael Quamina when the matter was called before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls in the Eighth Court. Manning is the first sitting prime minister to face a private criminal charge. The Prime Minister was charged via a summons, along with a man identified as Michael Vasqueo, of Morvant. Both Manning and Vasqueo were alleged to have used annoying language against Cumberbatch on May 21, in Port-of-Spain. Up to late yesterday, Cumberbatch was at the office of the Justice of the Peace at the court, seeking to lay new charges.
She has until November 21, six months from the date of the alleged offence, to have the charges relaid before they become statute-barred. A source at the court confirmed that fresh private charges were laid against Manning and Vasqueo, but did not wish to divulge the new court date. The court case, exclusively carried in yesterday’s Guardian, resulted in several journalists camping outside the court from as early as 7 am, hoping the PM would show up. Even though Manning did not personally appear in court, his security detail pulled up outside the St Vincent Street courthouse, 20 minutes after the case was dismissed.
The Prime Minister did not come out of the vehicle. He simply smiled and waved at members of the media before his detail drove off. The case was the first to be called around 9.30 am before Mc Nicolls, who called both Manning’s and Cumberbatch’s names in open court. Within less then two minutes, the matter was dismissed by Mc Nicolls after Cumberbatch failed to appear in court when her name was called. The matter against Vasqueo was also thrown out, as Cumberbatch entered the courtroom.
Cumberbatch was seated in the First Court waiting for the matter to be called, oblivious to the fact that the matter was also listed before Mc Nicolls. After she was told that the matter against Manning was dismissed by Mc Nicolls, Cumberbatch ran towards the Eighth Court, only to be informed that both matters were thrown out because of her absence.
She was told by the prosecutor that the matters were dismissed because of her absence and advised there was a course of action she could adopt if she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the case. One hour later, the matters involving Manning and Vasqueo were called again. This time, before First Court Magistrate Cheron Raphael. The magistrate was told by Cpl Edmund that the matters were listed to be heard before the Chief Magistrate. “Oh! Well, this matter was wrongfully listed,” Raphael said. When asked by reporters to comment on the dismissal of the charges, Cumberbatch, who gave her address as Quarry Road in San Juan, said she was seeking to have the charges relaid. “I don’t like to be bombarded like that, okay...When I have comments I will let you know,” she said.
When asked if she had intentions of having fresh charges filed, she said, “I am very tired right now, but I am attending to it.” Meanwhile, Quamina said it was not unusual for private complaints to be dealt with swiftly by the courts. He told reporters he had no clue what the charges stemmed from. It was alleged that on May 21, Manning and Vasqueo did use “annoying language with intent to provoke the complainant (Cumberbatch) to commit a breach of peace, contrary to Section 49, Chapter 11:02 of the Summary Offences Act.” On June 25, Cumberbatch laid a complaint of the alleged offence and summonses were issued for both defendants.
Within less then [sic] two
Within less then [sic] two minutes, the matter was dismissed by Mc Nicolls after Cumberbatch failed to appear in court when her name was called. The matter against Vasqueo was also thrown out, as Cumberbatch entered the courtroom.
Cumberbatch was seated in the First Court waiting for the matter to be called, oblivious to the fact that the matter was also listed before Mc Nicolls. After she was told that the matter against Manning was dismissed by Mc Nicolls, Cumberbatch ran towards the Eighth Court, only to be informed that both matters were thrown out because of her absence.
Says it all, doesn't it? Seems this was a set up designed to have the case thrown out, based upon the non-appearance of the complainant. Seems also, she was not informed of the change of venue to facilitate the plan.
Jumbie's Watch
I hope that Mr Big doesn't
I hope that Mr Big doesn't get to her.
....this is very, very
....this is very, very strange...this is a criminal matter....this just doesn't add up...
It's a civil matter. A
It's a civil matter. A criminal matter is one where the state prosecutes.
Jumbie's Watch
Reeks of another case of
Reeks of another case of "Used Gazette Paper". Mix Up my Ar** !!
KNOHO
No surprises here...lets
No surprises here...lets hope she gets justice next time around.
A very deliberate maneuver
A very deliberate maneuver to frustrate and deny justice.
Rik Hansel
WASTE OF THE COURTS TIME.
WASTE OF THE COURTS TIME. There are much more serious cases waiting to be heard yet she thinks the court is some moron forum where she could prance around as she damn well please. Her rude attitude to the media spoke volumes about her credibility. What is her real purpose, fame???
Really, rickyt23, it was not
Really, rickyt23, it was not Ms Cumberbatch's fault the case was switched to another court without her knowledge. To compound the error, the same case was called in another court after it was thrown out in the Eighth Court, which makes any rational person wonder if this was by accident or design. Her response was reasonable - she is aiming to have the matter relaid before the courts, so to discuss it in the press would be wrong and undermine her case in court. Her credibility has been improved by her silence, and she wasn't rude at all.
You seem to know more about the case than the media, if you can state emphatically that it's a waste of time. Care to share?
I disagree
I disagree
Her rude attitude to the media spoke volumes about her credibility.
rickyt23, try and put yourself in Ms Cumberbatch's shoes. You have been waiting somewhere, where you were told to wait (Court Room A); changes are made which you have not been informed of; when the information reaches you and you run across to the revised venue, you learn that the case has been 'dismissed', rather than initiative being demonstrated and someone checking to see if you are in Court Room A and did not get the information; alternatively, you may have gotten lost along the way.
I think you as above, would be mightly upset. Whatever the reason, it takes a lot of courage to file against someone, never mind the Prime Minister of your country.
As for being rude to the media... I think her response was perfectly acceptable under the circumstances and possibly a lot more respectful that certain politicians who are our employees!
La Diva
You are right, La Diva. This
You are right, La Diva. This must have been quite a trying experience for Ms Cumberbatch. No wonder the woman seemed upset and stressed out. The whole thing smells. It seems a plot was hatched and MacNicholls pulled a rabbit out his hat and did his magic trick. Before you could say abracadabra, case dismissed.
These guys use the loopholes
These guys use the loopholes and other techniques to frustrate law abiding citizens. There should be some sort of investigation into this to see if there was any wrongdoing from within.
SLICK
SLICK MOVE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Slick Move dey bor...With yuh "men in Black" darkers and all. Send she one way and you move the other...and all this SpIT making news while we 'deading' from
wastage of money
bad roads
high food prices
mismanagement of the economy
new taxes
low pension
bad health care
poor water supply
I mean all yuh ...VOTE this man out
JP
Follow this case and see the
Follow this case and see the confusion, frustration and bacchanal still to come.
I'll not be surprised if this lady is now intimidated, insulted and even threatened, so as to either drop the case or not appear.
http://dsaltsman.blogspot.com/
We told you so, or at least
We told you so, or at least many did.
ajfyzabadbutlertown
CONSTITUTIONAL COUP IN T&T
CONSTITUTIONAL COUP IN T&T -
We already have had our 20 year COUP, a Constitutional COUP,
1) UDECOTT and Hart unanswerable to Parliament and the people.
2) The Judiciary under threat.
3) The opposition stymied, Kamla and Ramesh denied motions. Opposition denied their Members Motion Day to speak by manipulation of the proceedings. Questions unanswered for months.
4) PM refusal to answer questions from press.
5) Government control and intimidation of the media.
6) Attempt to foist new constitution on unsuspecting public.
This is a clear manipulation of the Judicary. This is really frightening. Those who are against the Privy Council think again.
This is such a stupid case,
This is such a stupid case, I am amazed that the court has the time even to entertain it, but the usually suspect will alway find a reason to attack the PM of Trinidad and Tobago and I am sure most of the poster to this forum could not explain the nature of this case. Just imagine people could contract out the killing of their wifes or rival and the run around the country free and clear and no one makes "ah how" but in the silly case like this on against the PM everyone have their panty is a bunch. You all never seems to amaze me.
LET's SHOOT THE MESSENGER
LET's SHOOT THE MESSENGER -
Let's shoot the messenger who so happens to be a woman. How brave and macho. We have a defenceless woman and a powerful PM, David and Goliath. It was not stupid to do the act in the first place. When will we stop making PNM less responsible by attacking everyone else, when their actions are of a lesser nature? We keep giving PNM a free ride. Reminds me of the mother who said her son has to eat ah food, so it was all right excusing away his life as a criminal.
How is this going to
How is this going to develop?. What kind of statement could the PM have said to make this woman in particular want to "Get on Bad" as young people will say?.
This is a frivolous and waste of time case, we could all have the PM in court as each day he has been know to say something that will upset us all and provoke verbal obscenity. It would be interesting to know how many other people she has taken to court for one reason or the other.
This woman was brave enough
This woman was brave enough to stand up to what she perceived as injustice by the PM - I applaud her for this. You seek to discredit her for this - shame on you.
You state "we could all have the PM in court as each day he has been know to say something that will upset us all and provoke verbal obscenity". Well why don't you take action and be brave like this woman, instead of criticising her.
The straw that broke the
The straw that broke the camel's back.
It is amazing how we are so
It is amazing how we are so often quick to jump to conclusions that appear to paint someone we do not approve of in a bad light. I believe the medical term for it is paranoia. I advise those eager to embrace another conspiracy theory to read some of the other media reports on this matter. Are they aware that the lady in question has filed similar charges against her parents?
And?
And?
Are they aware that the lady in question has filed similar charges against her parents?
I have seen another report that Ms Cumberbatch has similar charges against her step-father and mother, I believe. Perhaps she has asked them to stop? Because she is her mother's daughter, does not give her mother the right to verbally abuse her or say what ever it is they said that could have resulted in the daughter herself breaking the 'law' as per this matter.
The fact that the lady has a grievence warrants looking into. We do not know what her 'terms and conditions' are, whether it is an apology or money or something else.
Perhaps by this lady's courage to do what she is doing, it may inspire others to do the 'right' thing, what ever that may be.
If Prime Minster Manning could have his day in court, with the policeman who lost his job over what he is supposed to have said/behaved (I believe I read Mrs Manning related a different version?)why can Ms Cumberbatch not have her day in court relating to this alleged incident?
A friend related a saying to me once in relation to their finances, in jest. It went something like this. "Big bills I cannot pay; little bills, I ignore." So, applying this to Trinbago, "Little incidents we ignore; big incidents we cannot pay/afford to have investigations/commissions of inquiry into, and the reports made public."
For all we know, there may be others eagerly watching to see how this plays out, to see if they should risk bringing more serious matters to court? Pure conjuncture and speculation on my part.
La Diva
The fact that the lady has a
The fact that the lady has a grievence warrants looking into.
The fact is the lady IS a grievence, whose psychiatric history warrants looking into.
Have you any idea how subjective the term "Annoying language" is?? So she want to sue her mother and stepfather... she could well sue her dog for barking "annoyingly". Heaven forfends she might break the law and cuss if she becomes annoyed. And listen to the justifications for bringing such frivolity before the courts.. more madness!!!!!!!!
Allyuh real jokey with an already overburdened court system in this place yes. Too much damn idle time on allyuh hands.
Marchalis Allyuh real jokey
Marchalis
Allyuh real jokey with an already overburdened court system in this place yes.
And our court system is overburdened, because...
Have you any idea how subjective the term "Annoying language" is??
Do you have any idea how subjective the terms 'bullying', 'sexual harassment' or 'stress' are? What one person/culture may see as 'bullying' or 'sexual harassment', another may see it as... 'banter' or 'just makin' joke'.
For the record, I am not saying any of the above is what the young lady is allegeding, but am using the words to illustrate how "subjective" a lot of words can be.
I also do not know the young lady and far be it from me to say that she "is" (your words, not mine) the grievence.
If you think there is no merit at all in what the young lady is allegeding, what is your considered and respectful view then as to why the learned judge did not throw out the matter as vexation and therefore without merit rather than because of 'no show'?
Incidentally, I seem to recall where the above same learned judge threw out a case against a fellow judge because the policeman (a witness for the prosecution or the charging policeman?) was a no show. Care to share your considered and respectful view on why this case was also thrown out/dismissed rather than postponed?
PS. You have used the psychiatric history warrants looking into rabbit. Please use another one this time round.
La Diva
A bit of trivia...
A bit of trivia...
Marchalis, I thought you (and possibly others) may like to know...
Singapore banned chewing gum in 1992 because of a litter problem... 2004, the ban was partially lifted to allow only gum aimed at helping smokers to quit... the penalty for smuggling gum into the country is one year in jail, and a 10,000 Singapore dollar (US$5,500) fine.
You (and others) may say all that for chewing gum?! But, it had become a problem for Singapore and the authorities took drastic action.
I do not know, I have never visited there but I suspect their jails are not as pristine as the streets. Therefore, if I were you and you had the opportunity to visit Singapore, you would be well advised not to have any non "therapeutic" gum on you, unless you have US$5,500 to 'throw away' on something as 'trivial' as chewing gum, if you would not like to experience Singaporian jails.
I have also been led to believe that Singapore has a law requiring mandatory flushing of their public toilets. Don't believe me? Go to Singapore. (~_^)
If you think our courts are overburden, just think what it would be like if such laws was brought in here and followed up on!
La Diva
Too much of the posters on
Too much of the posters on this forum judgment is clouded by gender, party affiliation and pure hate for Manning and the PNM.
WHO MADE THIS LAW
WHO MADE THIS LAW -
Some questions,
1) Who made this law, not this lady?
2) Who laid the charges, not this lady?
I do not know if I can just walk into a police station make up a law and then charge someone. I know people who for years have complained about abuse from there husband and nothing is done until the woman is murdered. I did not know it was so easy to get someone charged especially a PM. So even if we want to attack the messenger, she seemed to have had a lot of help from the system. But again big fish eat little fish and all we need to do is discredit the woman how macho.
....the good buddy and pal
....the good buddy and pal of the PM, Mc Nicolls, at the last minute exercises his prerogative and had the case transferred to his court without informing the complainant who had arrived on time at was seated in the appointed court....whether this matter is of substance or not is not the issue...at best it's just non-gazetting type incompetence or at worst, an elaborate Sharma type plot to pervert the course of justice....take your pick....
Ha!...Like we didn't see
Ha!...Like we didn't see that coming......
In spite of all the
In spite of all the innuendoes and the political bias of this judgement, this is very good news for the Legal fraternity in T & T. For the first time in the Nation's history a matter has been punctually caled and expeditiously dispatched. This is surely a sign that we are well on the way to First World status. Ho Ho Ho!!!
Does any of the Prime
Does any of the Prime Minister's critic know what the offense was?
Check out yesterday's
Check out yesterday's Guardian for details and background notes.
Note the case was not dismissed on vexatious grounds but because the complainant was absent when the matter was called as she was sitting in the court where she would have expected that the matter would be heard.
The case has attracted attention because of the very high profile of the accused. As the saying goes, give a dog a bad name and hang him.
Our late Archbishop Anthony
Our late Archbishop Anthony Pantin often repeated the comment that no one pelts stone at mango tree unless said tree is bearing fruit. By that yardstick, it appears that our PM 'bearing much good fruit' for so many to be peltin' stones at him. What folly!!!
Firstly - is this woman employing a lawyer to defend her in court? If yes, then I would like to know who is paying her lawyer (lawyers don't come cheap). If not, she's defending herself in court and she must know the old adage, 'one who defends himself in court has a fool for a client!'
And yes, to be honest, her charge is very superfluous. What stupidity! If every Trini charged every person who said something that they believed was 'annoying language' with intent 'to provoke an angry response', there wouldn't be sufficient hours in a day, days in a year, to get through these cases.
Come on Trinis - get a life! Your life is not only about seizing every opportunity to criticise the PM of T&T.
Yes Ma'am
Yes Ma'am
Your life is not only about seizing every opportunity to criticise the PM of T&T.
You are absolutely correct. However, if our PM (or any other PM for that matter) et al is giving us bountiful opportunities to critise him, who is wasting their time? On one hand, yes us, seeing as he is carrying on as if he is totally oblivious to the views and concerns of his employers! (Yes, that includes you and me, the six year old boy in the street and the unborn children of Trinbago, yet to be conceived.) On the other hand, no. We are not wasting our time in demanding that our employees "improve standards" as a certain person was saying just a few days ago vis-a-vis our businesses competing on an international level.
What stupidity! If every Trini charged every person who said something that they believed was 'annoying language' with intent 'to provoke an angry response', there wouldn't be sufficient hours in a day, days in a year, to get through these cases.
Perhaps, if every Trinbagonian did bring an action against every person etc etc we may have less shootings and deaths for a start! Sadly also resulting in the deaths of innocent bystanders rather than the two (or how ever many people) having the differences in opinion!
Secondly, the decline in our society would have been halted many years ago because the first 20 times 'annoying language' occured and people were in court, the next 200 million times would not have happened.
Thirdly, you go and say something that someone believes to be 'annoying language' to a fellow colleague (in certain organisations), and you will see if you do not end up with harrassment or disciplinary proceedings brought against you.
Fourthly, if you, as an employer organisation did not protect your employee from such 'annoying language' (we do not know what that 'annoying language' may have been, but, hopefully you will have a bit of the picture I am trying to paint here) the employee could bring you the employer before the courts!
As someone pointed out earlier. The matter was 'dismissed' due to the 'non-appearance' of the complainant... not because the matter was vexatious...
Vexatious: Law. (of legal actions) instituted without sufficient grounds and serving only to cause annoyance to the defendant. Source: dictionary.com
La Diva
Wow! Beware furry tails that
Wow! Beware furry tails that swish.
Yes Sir, Mister Prince
Yes Sir, Mister Prince
Yes, do beware furry tails that swish, especially when you omit "Persian" and "elegantly"!
(^*^)
(Rats have furry tails too, from what I understand, purely from my observational skills whilst taking 'tea' breaks. I would not like for their tails (urgh!) to be confused with mine. (~_^))
Singing... Everytime ah pass, yuh look at meh. Everytime ah pass, yuh look at meh. Ah go tell meh mama dough send meh down deh... (^_~)
La Diva
La Diva, a tail is a tail is
La Diva, a tail is a tail is a tail. Should I give a rat's tail if it's a pig tail or a dove tail or a dog tail? But that's a long tale best left for another day.
Mister Prince La Diva, a
Mister Prince
La Diva, a tail is a tail is a tail. Should I give a rat's tail if it's a pig tail or a dove tail or a dog tail?
Not all tails are equal. Some are rounder or more peach shaped than others, just as others are furry yet softer to the touch. As for the body to which that tail may be attached that is one body of a subject best left for another day. (^_~)
La Diva
Look! Leave His Grace The
Look!
Leave His Grace The Archbishop out of this!
You obviously never knew him.
He stood for JUSTICE!
Annoying Language!!! What a
Annoying Language!!! What a joke!!! You cyar get more subjective than that!! See why now all them archaic laws have to be reviewed?!
Among all the dumbest cases ever to appear before any court, this one ranks among them. Forget for a moment that it is against the PM, this woman also had a similar case being heard that day against her mother and stepfather!!!!!!! Apparently whenever people tell this woman something, according to if she eh like it, she want to sue!!!! Talk about having a setta screw loose in she head. As a kid she must have been one of those school children who cried incessantly at every little remark. She damn lucky she eh get costs slapped on her as well.
The American court system is in the process of taking steps to prevent people from tying up the courts with dotish lawsuits. This qualifies nicely.
Other than that, typical non-news.
(deleted by La Diva)
(deleted by La Diva)