Email

Print

On last week Thursday, we told you about how PUP talk show host Albert Vaughan was fighting a loitering charge in the Magistrate's Court. That charge, as we've told you, dates back to August of last year when the sanitation workers did their famous garbage strike when they were employed by Belize Maintenance Limited.

Vaughan's defence was that he was not loitering when the police arrested him along with the other 41 sanitation workers. He says that he was reporting for the Belize Times newspaper and Vibes Radio, but the police targeted him for this charge because he is one of the PUP media personalities who is critical of the UDP government. At last week's adjournment, his attorney, Kareem Musa, made a no-case submission on his behalf that the evidence put forward by the prosecution has failed to show how he was breaking the laws and was loitering.

Today, the police prosecutor was allowed to respond, and after that session, we spoke with Vaughan's attorney about their chances of getting the charge struck out at this stage. Here's what he told you:

Kareem Musa – Attorney for Albert Vaughn

"On the last occasion we had made a no case submission with respect to the charge of loitering against Mr. Albert Vaughn. That case reconvened this afternoon, where the prosecution responded to the no case submission. The sergeant of police made his submission - we had an opportunity to reply as well, and now the magistrate will give her ruling on May 6th. Essentially, what the prosecutor was submitting, was that they're weren't material inconsistencies or discrepancies with the police evidence. The police has presented 2 officers, namely Mr. Broaster and Mr. Munnings. But we had brought out on a cross examination several material discrepancies and I think that is where the prosecution seems to be a little shaky. Because they brought a case to show that if there is discrepancies in a criminal trial, then you can still carry on after that - but not where there are material discrepancies such as this which actually goes to the heart and the elements of the offence of loitering. They were 2 main inconsistencies. One of the officers said that Albert Vaughn was making noise and the other officers said that he was making no noise. The other inconsistency is that one of the officers was saying that Albert Vaughn did not leave the scene and the the other officer said that in fact he had left the scene.

Daniel Ortiz

"Is loitering a really important case for it to have been argued so rigorously and for the case to be so in-depth?"

Kareem Musa

"I have never done a loitering case that has lasted over 10 adjournments. This is the first one. This man is important, clearly. He's important to the government. They want to use their forces to bring down opposition, people who are working and burning fire on them and that's what this is all about. And at the end of the day, I am most certain that this man will be vindicated."

The case goes back to court on May 6, at which time Magistrate Hettie Mae Stewart will decide if he must put forward a defence, or if she will strike the case out of court.