THE TRIBUNE
Wednesday, October 5, 2016, PAGE 5
Nygard intends to subpoena Prime Minister in court case By LAMECH JOHNSON Tribune Staff Reporter ljohnson@tribunemedia.net
CANADIAN fashion designer Peter Nygard intends to subpoena Prime Minister Perry Christie to give evidence in his committal proceedings before the Supreme Court, a move that was described by opposing counsel as being an attempt to turn the case into “a political circus.” The subpoena announcement was made by Elliot Lockhart, QC, one of two lawyers for Mr Nygard who is facing committal for allegedly breaching an order during an ongoing judicial review being done to determine whether the fashion designer had illegally increased the size of his property. Mr Nygard was present in the Ansbacher House courtroom when the request was made. Mr Lockhart and Damian Gomez, QC, had appeared before Justice Rhonda Bain last Friday to convince the judge to allow Mr Nygard’s motion that former and present Directors of Physical Planning Michael Major and Charles Zonicle be subpoenaed, as well as hedge fund billionaire Louis Bacon, who is Mr Nygard’s neighbour, to give evidence at the end of Save The Bay’s (STB) case. Dawson Malone, who
PETER NYGARD, who says he intends to issue a subpoena to Prime Minister Perry Christie. responded for STB’s, objected to the request on the basis that the court had given Mr Nygard a number of opportunities that were ignored. Justice Bain, yesterday, arrived at a similar conclusion when she dismissed the applications. “As the extent application is a claim of contempt, and the fifth respondent (Peter Nygard) has to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt, the fifth respondent should be given the opportunity to prove his case,” the judge said. “The court has made every effort to accommodate the fifth respondent to put forward his defence. There have been three orders for directions. The court can-
not continue to allow the fifth respondent to disobey the orders of the court with impunity. Continued disobedience of orders of the court would leave the court impotent,” she added. Justice Bain referred to the 2006 Supreme Court decision of Campbell v Alexiou and Others where Justice (Dame) Anita Allen said that the “effective administration of justice is dependent, in part, upon the enforcement of its orders.” Justice Bain further echoed the sentiments of Dame Anita concerning the court’s “obligation to protect the public interest and ensure that the court’s orders can be enforced and to prevent interference with the due administration of justice.”
“The court must ensure that the orders of the court are complied with. The court cannot allow the fifth respondent, by his non-compliance, to further delay the continuation of the contempt motion,” the judge ruled. The motion was formally dismissed. Before the ruling was given by Justice Bain on the application yesterday, Mr Lockhart made a similar application for another potential witness in his client’s defence. “I formally apply for leave to issue a subpoena against the prime minister as minister responsible for Crown land in this country,” Mr Lockhart said. Mr Lockhart then said that the court should reconsider whether Mr Nygard ought to be cross-examined for the proceedings given that the affidavit being relied upon came more than a year before the alleged contempt occurred. Fred Smith, lead counsel for STB, took issue with the latest requests, stressing that the applications were only a further attempt to derail the continuation of committal proceedings. “If he has an application to make, he should file and serve it,” Mr Smith said. “He’s foreshadowing an application to be formally filed,” Justice Bain suggested.
Mr Lockhart said the latter was correct. He stressed that the affidavit being relied upon was filed in 2013 and the alleged contempt occurred in 2014. “He ought not to be allowed to be cross-examined,” the lawyer said. Mr Smith, again, objected, noting that Mr Lockhart himself “had consented for Mr Nygard to be crossexamined and he didn’t appeal the decision.” “We are not here to engage in surprise tactical moves on this matter. Were it not for the hurricane, we’d be proceeding with the committal trial,” Mr Smith added. Speaking of the application to subpoena the prime minster, Mr Smith also objected. “It’s inappropriate for him to turn this into a political circus,” he said. “Why sue him and now trying to shut that door then?” Mr Lockhart asked. Wayne Munroe, QC, who now appears for the Crown in the judicial review with Loren Klein, Darcell Smith-Williams and Akeyra Saunders, said he wished to be heard on the latest application proposed by Mr Nygard. The court will hear submissions on that application on October 19 while the committal proceedings have been delayed until December 16 due to Hurricane
Matthew. STB’s battle with Mr Nygard over the construction/development activities at his Lyford Cay home stem from allegations that the activities have led to substantial growth of the property. The group claims that the Lyford Cay resident has almost doubled his property’s size, from 3.25 acres to 6.1 acres, since he acquired it in 1984, by allegedly reclaiming Crown land from the sea. The advocacy group has alleged that Mr Nygard achieved this without the necessary permits and approvals, claims that have been denied by the fashion designer. That comes against the backdrop of Justice Bain’s ruling in 2013 that until the conclusion of judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of the construction of a groyne and the dredging of the seabed off Nygard Cay, neither activity could continue. However, since then, STB has submitted photographic evidence in court alleging that the opposite has happened. Gia Moxey and Khrisna Higgins also appeared for Mr Nygard in yesterday’s hearing. Romauld Ferreira, Crispin Hall and Adrian Gibson appeared with Mr Smith and Mr Malone.
WOMAN JAILED FOR 14 YEARS FOR PART IN ROBBING WEB SHOP MANAGER By LAMECH JOHNSON Tribune Staff Reporter ljohnson@tribunemedia.net
A WOMAN was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Tuesday for having a role in the robbery of a web shop manager in Long Island. Daphne Knowles, of Cartwright’s, Long Island, appeared before Justice Bernard Turner to conclude the penalty phase of her trial relating to the events leading up to the death of Andrea Carroll in 2014. Crown prosecutor Basil Cumberbatch had previously argued that Knowles’ actions warranted 25 years while her lawyer argued for a sentence near the 10-year mark. Justice Turner said that although there was a hung verdict on the murder
charge, her involvement in the planning and actual robbery, warranted a punishment sufficient to deter others committing similar crimes. Knowles was sentenced to 14 years at the Department of Correctional Services. However, she was credited for the three prison years spent on remand and will serve the rest of the 11 years effective from Tuesday. Knowles initially stood trial before Justice Turner charged with murder, robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. Knowles was accused of having killed Carroll between November 28 and 29, 2014. It was further alleged that Knowles conspired with others to commit robbery
and actually robbed Carroll of cash belonging to Bowe’s Web Games Ltd. Carroll was found dead with cuts, bruises, a broken neck and a broken spinal cord. The prosecution produced witnesses who said that Knowles, a fired employee of Carroll, approached them about a plan to rob the web shop manager. Knowles, when interviewed by police after Carroll’s death, denied that $14,000 found in her possession had belonged to the web shop.
She said that as a drug trafficker she did not need to rob and murder a web shop manager for money. Her defence, however, was not completely accepted by the jury. While the jury returned a hung verdict of 7-5 on the murder charge, which
must he a unanimous verdict to be acceptable in law, Knowles was unanimously convicted on charges of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. Knowles would have faced the death penalty if convicted of the murder. The 12-member panel re-
turned the verdicts within an hour after being excused to deliberate on three weeks of evidence. Knowles has 21 days to contest her convictions and sentence to the Court of Appeal. Knowles was represented by attorney Sonia Timothy.