By Latrishka Thomas
Another two months will pass before the conclusion of the trial where social media personality Washington Bramble is accused of making inappropriate statements about the head of the magistracy.
Since early March, the transgender woman has been in and out of the St John’s Magistrate’s Court for what was supposed to be a short trial, but many surprises were thrown at the court by Bramble herself.
Over the past few weeks, the court heard from complainant Chief Magistrate Joanne Walsh, court clerks and police officers who were brought by the prosecution to convince the court that the defendant made posts on Facebook for the purpose of insulting, intimidating, causing hatred, and causing enmity towards Walsh.
A week into the trial, the defendant asked presiding Magistrate Dane Hamilton Jnr to recuse himself from the case saying that she had been told by an unnamed attorney about remarks made about her and/or the case suggesting bias.
That put a pin in the trial since both the defendant – who was representing herself – and the prosecution had to make submissions on the issue.
In the end, the recusal application was denied and the trial continued.
Just recently, the prosecution rested its case and Bramble was due to go on her defence, but she instead filed a ‘no case’ submission which yielded a somewhat positive result.
The magistrate ruled that there was not enough evidence to satisfy the charges related to causing enmity and intimidation.
He, however, ruled that Bramble does have a case to answer for causing hatred and insult. The defendant was not pleased with the decision and made it abundantly clear that she intended to appeal.
The defendant made good on her threat by making an application to the Court of Appeal with the intention of having the higher court overrule the decision on the ‘no case’ submission, freeing her of all of the charges.
Bramble cited the reasons for her appeal saying that “the decision is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence”, that “illegal evidence was admitted by the court and that there is not sufficient legal evidence to sustain the decision after rejecting such illegal evidence”, and “the decision is erroneous on a point of law”.
However, the prosecution believes that interlocutory decisions such as a ‘no case’ submission cannot be appealed.
Both parties now have to wait until the appellate court rules on the matter.
Bramble’s trial has therefore been put on hold until June 26.
