By Latrishka Thomas
Arguments in response to a recusal application made by social media personality Washington Bramble were heard yesterday, but the transgender woman came up short and her application was denied.
Bramble has been on trial since last week for remarks reportedly made on Facebook in February last year about Chief Magistrate Joanne Walsh for the purpose of insulting, intimidating, causing hatred, and causing enmity – all of which she denies.
Last Thursday, before the trial could go any further – and with about three more witnesses to go – Bramble asked Magistrate Dane Hamilton Jnr to recuse himself saying that she had been told by an unnamed attorney about remarks made about her and/or the case suggesting bias.
The defendant was asked to formally submit evidence of the allegation of bias, including an affidavit from the said attorney to be put forward yesterday.
Bramble did not file any evidence but told the court, “I don’t believe it needs any affidavit. It’s a simple matter.”
She said that she instead wrote a letter which she proceeded with permission to read aloud.
Bramble began by refuting claims made by the prosecution on Thursday that the recusal application wasn’t “rooted in merit but is a tactic” because it happened to come at a time when the evidence was allegedly turning in the prosecution’s favour.
“The reality is the table never turned. The prosecution came to the table with loaded dice. The game was never fair,” Bramble responded yesterday.
She went on to say that she had been informed that the magistrate was “hand-picked” by the complainant, who is the head of the magistracy, as a substitute to preside over her case.
She also made mention of a police witness who is an in-law of the magistrate.
Before the trial began the magistrate disclosed that information to the defendant and she agreed that it wasn’t an issue.
In her argument yesterday, however, she appeared to have changed her mind.
Bramble then outlined some more concerns to include that one magistrate had already recused himself and that the complainant is the superior of all magistrates.
She also claimed that Walsh had been reported for bullying her subordinates along with other unscrupulous actions.
The prosecutor rebutted by laying down some legal precedents which formed the basis of her argument.
She noted firstly that no evidence of bias was presented to the court and then went on to say that Hamilton could not be biased because he was taken from the bar table where the Chief Magistrate is not the boss.
“You being so far removed you are most likely to not have the preconceived notions,” she said.
She also reminded the court that “in circumstances where others may have snapped you have shown nothing but patience,” referring to rude remarks and outbursts made by the defendant.
She also mentioned the fact that the magistrate took time to explain the law at every step of the way since the defendant is unrepresented.
“This is not the attitude of someone who is biased or has already formed an opinion of the way this case would go,” the Crown put forward.
She then spoke to the evidence given by the cousin-in-law of the magistrate and argued that that evidence actually assisted the accused.
“This is not a fit and proper case for recusal,” she concluded.
After a break to deliberate, the magistrate then spoke to points outlined in both arguments.
He first clarified that he was appointed by the Attorney General having applied for the position of magistrate years ago to no avail until recently when he was interviewed and subsequently hired to fill in for a period while two magistrates are on leave.
He also indicated that he did not know why a previous magistrate had recused himself.
Moreover, he said that the position of Chief Magistrate is administrative and that “matters are assigned by staff at the court and not by the Chief Magistrate”.
“I do not know the accused personally,” he went on to say.
” I have not made comments concerning any of my opinions on evidence in the case so far,” he added.
He then ruled, “I am satisfied that I am not actually biased against the accused …the reasonable observer would not find that merely that the Chief Magistrate is the virtual complainant would lead to bias.”
The defendant then informed the court of her intention to challenge that decision.
Nevertheless, the trial continued with the investigator in the case, Troy Willock.
Willock was in the middle of examination in chief when the trial was adjourned until today.