“There is inconsistency,” says DPP over discontinuance of charge against lawyer
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on Friday said that the discontinuation of the racial assault charge against Attorney-at-Law Nirvan Singh was due to inconsistency in the virtual complainant’s statement.
The charge was instituted by Police Constable Shonette Bollers against Singh, whom she has accused of hurling racial slurs at her. In fact, he was charged under the Racial Hostility Act.
According to DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack, she received the Police file with the matter on April 11, 2022 and it was sent back on April 24, highlighting Section 2 of the Racial Hostility Act, Chapter 23:01, which states:
“A person shall be guilty of an offence if he willfully excites or attempts to excite hostility or ill-will against any section of the public or against any person on the grounds of their or his race – by means of words spoken by him in a public place or spoken by him and transmitted for general reception by wireless telegraphy(s) or by causing words spoken by him or by some other person to be reproduced in a public place from a record; or by means of written or pictorial matters published by him.”
In light of the Racial Hostility Act, the DPP contends that the evidence in the case does not fit the criteria stated in the Section 2 of the Racial Hostility Act.
On this note, Ali-Hack said the “evidence is not consistent with the offence,” as the words used by the Singh were not spoken in order to excite others to act with hostility or ill-will against Bollers.
The DPP added that the allegation by Bollers of being spat on by Singh, has inconsistency.
“The said night the virtual complainant in her written report in the police diary which is attached to the file, stated ‘…Because he was in front of my face spitting up where I could smell the high volume of alcohol on his breathe, I pick up my belongings, I step out off the location…’ This written report on the night of the incident does not state that the suspect willfully spat on the complainant,” the DPP posited.
It was noted that the evidence lodged in the Police diary by the Constable the day after the incident “is clear that he was 'spitting up' while speaking and it was not a deliberate act of spitting.”
On Wednesday last, the charge against the attorney was discontinued and the Constable’s Attorney Eusi Anderson said they are prepared to take the matter all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
Also, Bollers has mounted a $150 million lawsuit against Singh. She argues that among other things, that the slander and surrounding events of that night have led her to receive professional counselling as she is unable to sleep and eat as she normally does.
Comments