Criminal proceedings against the four Trinidadians of the party boat Harbour Master were concluded on Wednesday at the St. George’s N0.1 Magistrate Court before Magistrate Teddy St. Louis when he delivered his sentence of a fine to the Trinidad nationals after they pleaded guilty to causing grievous harm to Anderson Peters and causing harm to his brother Kiddon Peters.
Fifty-five-year-old John Alexander, 35-year-old Mikhail John, 42-year-old Noel Cooper & 28-year-old Sheon Jack, following their sentencing on Wednesday, were ordered by Magistrate St. Louis, to pay a fine of $3,500 to be paid forthwith, failure to do so will result in a prison term of 1yr, for causing grievous harm to Anderson, while a fine of $ 2000 each to be paid forthwith, or in default will result in six months imprisonment, was imposed for causing harm to Kiddon Peters, taking into consideration time served as time spent (for the seven days that they spent in custody).
Grenada’s World Javelin Champion Anderson Peters and his brother Kiddon Peters, were both absent from the courtroom on Wednesday, prompting the magistrate to inquire about their absence.
Before handing down sentence on the men, Magistrate Teddy St. Louis, in his summary, stated that the unlawful altercation between the men is not an unusual case and he would not treat the case any differently.
Magistrate St. Louis noted that if the crew members were Grenadian, they would have been more tolerant in their efforts at getting Peters and those with him, off the boat. Alluding to his perspective, he stated that if he was asked by the crew to get off the boat, he would have been the first person the get off in an effort to avoid an altercation of any sort.
The case, he uttered is being followed worldwide and the eyes of the world are on Grenada. He added, that the court is not afraid of prying eyes in decisions it can stand by and indicated that the incident that amounted to a fight among the men, and with the nature of the case, it does not warrant a custodial sentence.
Moreover, Magistrate St. Louis noted that because the men pleaded guilty to the charges, the law allows for a one-third reduction on their sentence.
However, he acknowledged that the force used by the crew members was excessive, which boils down to an unlawful fight, but also insisted that in the heat of a battle one does not measure the amount of damage caused and described the incident as unfortunate regardless of where one is.
In his final comments, magistrate St. Louis expressed the belief that commercial considerations played a part in the aggressive nature of the crew members in their efforts to get the people off the boat ahead of another contractual cruise that was scheduled, and pointing to the fact that the Central Police Station was near where the boat was docked and so the crew could have sought assistance from the police to remove all the disobedient party goers off the boat, rather than opting to use violence and taking matters into their own hands.
Both the police prosecution and the defence had agreed on the facts of the case beforehand. The police prosecution was unable to provide any aggravating factors to convince the court to impose a custodial sentence. The court also noted that it was not an unprovoked incident meaning that the fight was caused by the actions of Peters and those who were with him and not by the captain and his crew.
According to the police prosecution, at the end of the cruise, Anderson Peters and his group were ordered to leave the boat by a crew member. However, the police could not prove that the crewmen started the fight or whether they were only defending themselves.
Defence attorney, Cajeton Hood, noted that the Peters brothers were asked on several occasions to leave as there was another contractual cruise following and they knew that, so there was no way they could have stayed on the boat.
He also pointed out that there were three cruises on that day and everything went smoothly, no one got beaten up by any crew member and so something must have happened that gave rise to the altercation.
Hood told the court that his clients claimed to have acted in self-defence but admitted that they were wrong and did not handle the situation correctly.
He said there were no identification tags on persons entering the boat and his clients did not target anyone, everyone was treated the same by the crew members. “If you touch the captain, then you know what will happen next, I am not trying to justify their actions but was just trying to set the stage to what led up to the matter,” Hood commented.
He further told the court that the four men are all family men and fathers who are not inclined to any drunk or disorderly behaviours, they are also heavily involved within their communities, and are outstanding men.
English