By Latrishka Thomas
The woman charged with causing death by dangerous driving following the collision that killed Police Constable Robert Dyer on September 4 made her first appearance in the St John’s Magistrate’s Court yesterday – but the mere fact that she was charged is not sitting well with her attorney.
Dayneri Ferrer Vincent-Urlwin is said to have been behind the wheel of a Jeep Wrangler that collided with Dyer’s motorcycle, resulting in the officer’s tragic death.
The incident occurred around 11.20am and Dyer was pronounced dead around 12.45pm. He was laid to rest on Tuesday.
Dyer was reportedly travelling from east to west on Sir Sydney Walling Highway when he collided with the jeep that was travelling in the opposite direction.
Reports further state that the defendant was turning right into Luna Park when she collided with the policeman who had just overtaken some vehicles.
The Hispanic woman is represented by attorney Wendel Alexander — formerly known as Wendel Robinson — who expressed doubt regarding the thoroughness of the investigation.
“I get the distinct impression that the motorbike itself has not been properly examined and it appears to me as if the police was just waiting for him to be buried for them to charge her,” he remarked.

“You don’t charge a person because he [Constable Dyer] was a police officer and many police officers like him. You charge him because you have evidence or witnesses who can speak to the manner of driving of the accused person,” he went on to assert.
“I am very doubtful that they have evidence that my client was driving in such a manner that was dangerous, having regard to all the circumstances of the case,” he further opined.
In light of these concerns, Alexander suggested a review of the case by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) before proceeding further.
“A case like this should go to the DPP so that [the DPP] could examine the evidence and make an informed decision on the quality of the evidence that my client was driving in such a dangerous manner to be charged with causing death by dangerous driving,” he said.
Additionally, he recommended that a coroner’s inquest was a more suitable approach for establishing accountability.
The lawyer pledged to vigorously defend his client and further highlighted his intention to “fight tooth and nail” in her defence.
Vincent-Urlwin had initially been granted station bail upon her arrest, but the bail was revoked and replaced with a $50,000 bond — which included an $8,000 cash component — imposed by Magistrate Dexter Wason during her recent court appearance.
Additional conditions were also enforced, including orders to surrender her travel documents, provide two sureties, and report to a police station three times per week.
Furthermore, her driver’s licence was confiscated, and her next court appearance is scheduled for January 15.
if a person is innocent under law until proven guilty what right does the court have to take away the person driver’s license as a condition of bail . what seems to happen is that court has taken punitive actions against this person before a guilty verdict.
let’s suppose that she wins her case should the state be sued. if this person is business woman that uses her vehicle for a living then this case take 4 years to complete you would have depriving her of income and it would be fair to sue the state for lost of income after she wins her case..
such actions to suspend her from driving should only happen if she is found guilty by the court but in the absence of due process which is a trial this is violating her rights under the constitution.
powers are resides in the law and not in the authority the can only go as far as the law allows her to as much parliament may amend law to give them the powers of discretion such discretion must be exercise within the framework of the constitution.
Wendell you have work to do.