By Latrishka Thomas
A magistrate yesterday cut down the number of charges against Washington Bramble to half, but the social media personality was seemingly upset that the entire case was not quashed.
About three weeks ago, after the prosecution closed its case, the transgender woman submitted a ‘no case’ submission to have her court case thrown out.
Bramble was at the time accused of making statements on Facebook about Chief Magistrate Joanne Walsh for the purpose of insulting, intimidating, causing hatred, and causing enmity, all of which she denied.
She stood trial for a couple of weeks for the crimes but constantly asserted that the prosecution’s main piece of evidence — screenshots sent from one of the court’s clerks to another — constituted hearsay.
She also claimed that some witnesses falsified the screenshots and other evidence for the head of the magistracy who she claims has a “vendetta” against her.
The defendant, in her submission, said she believes that the evidence put forward by the more than five witnesses “did not meet the bar required under the Electronic Evidence Act” as there was no “digital forensic evidence … required to prove the origin of the Facebook posts in question”.
She said the complainant’s evidence did not show that she committed the acts she is charged with.
Bramble also put forward that a fiat from the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) was not “properly obtained”.
“A general authorisation letter signed by the former DPP, Anthony Armstrong, was shown, but it did not specify which matter it relates to, considering that the defendant has two matters before the court,” she continued in the written submission.
The defendant also took issue with the charges themselves saying that they were not properly laid out and that the prosecution did not indicate which of the two posts each charge referred to.
Moreover, she claimed that if she had not brought it to the court’s attention, the trial would have gone on without her officially entering a plea.
Having read these arguments juxtaposed with a rebuttal from the prosecution and the evidence put forward, Magistrate Dane Hamilton Jnr ruled that there is not sufficient 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 in relation to the head of the magistracy.
The news, though slightly positive, was not welcomed by the defendant who called the decision “erroneous”.
She quickly rose and again asked the magistrate to recuse himself from the case and said she would like the higher court to rule on the no case submission.
Magistrate Hamilton Jnr informed her that she has the right to appeal the decision or to request a stay of proceedings, but said that the trial will still continue until such time.
“It seems as though this is some kind of kangaroo court,” Bramble responded.
The defendant was warned about disrespecting the court and then informed that on Monday she will be placed on her defence where she will have the option to give a statement without questioning, give evidence under oath and be subject to cross examination, or remain silent.