JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, May 18, 2025

Mat­ter list­ed for two courts...

PM's case thrown out

by

20091014

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.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored