Court sets aside partygoer's obscene language, assault conviction

A partygoer who was convicted of using obscene language and assaulting another patron at the Liv Nightclub in San Fernando, in 2016, has been successful in his appeal.

Matthew O’Connor was fined $200 and $4,000 for the charges.

His appeal was upheld by Justices of Appeal Prakash Moosai and Gillian Lucky during a hearing of San Fernando magisterial appeals on Friday.

However, at his appeal on Friday, his attorneys Shaun Morris and Larry Williams argued the reasons given by the magistrate for convicting their client were inadequate. Morris also argued the offence of obscene language was not reflected in the evidence presented by the State at the trial in the magistrate’s courts, so that conviction, as well as the conviction for assault, should not remain.

Morris said it was O’Connor’s case that the alleged victim was the aggressor. It was the prosecution’s case that O’Connor allegedly approached a young woman to speak to her and she told him her boyfriend was there and pointed him out.

It was also alleged the boyfriend walked up to them. He also alleged O’Connor said, “allyuh from south getting tie up and I from the west.” He was also alleged to have threatened the boyfriend.

The State alleged O’Connor threw his drink on the boyfriend and the glass struck him on the lip.

Morris said O’Connor’s defence was self-defence and accident, maintaining he did not hit the boyfriend but raised his hands to protect himself when he was pushed. He said it was while raising his hands, the cup, which was plastic and not glass, hit the boyfriend on his lip.

Morris said the magistrate failed to address the defences of his client, and the reliance on the medical certificate could not resolve the issue on which version of events to believe since there was no denial that the boyfriend’s lip was hit but did not help determine how the injury happened.

Although the State, represented by deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Tricia Hudlin-Cooper said there were no reasons to set aside the convictions, admitted the magistrate's reasons should have been more detailed and fairness required a proper evaluation of the evidence from both sides.

“It came down to the credibility of both sides.”

In allowing O’Connor’s appeal, Hudlin-Cooper was commended for acting in the interest of justice as an officer of the court.

In another appeal involving a prison officer who was allegedly charged with losing his official firearm, Hudlin-Cooper said the State was not opposing the appeal on the basis of a recent ruling of the High Court on the power of the Commissioner of Prisons to allow off-duty prison officers to carry their service weapons.

The judges, in setting aside the orders of the magistrate in that case, said greater care should be taken in the drafting of legislation on drugs and firearms. In a ruling in December, Justice Devindra Rampersad held that a policy which allowed off-duty prison officers to take home their service weapons after their shifts ended because of safety concerns was illegal.

Earlier this month, the Attorney General announced a planned amendment to the Firearms Act that would allow the Prisons Commissioner to give off-duty prison officers permission to carry guns.

Speaking during his contribution to the Senate budget debate, AG Reginald Armour, SC, said the proposed amendment directly sought to protect prison officers better.

"The proposed amendment to the Firearms Act is in direct response to, among other things, the recent and disturbing trend which sees the brutal public executions of serving prison officers."

He said this bill will empower the Commissioner of Prisons to let a prison officer have a gun or ammunition while off-duty or in any public place where the commissioner considers the officer's life or safety under threat from the public.