Teen pleads not guilty to wounding charge
The reason given by the police prosecutor was that the incident had allegedly occurred at 3 a.m.
Responding, the teen’s attorney explained that the youngster played football some evenings and even though he was not advocating 3 a.m., the curfew ought not to be “too draconian at this stage.”
The attorney explained that the accused usually reached home around 8 p.m. and asked the court to consider extending it until such time, as opposed to the proposed 7 p.m.
“But what is his claim to fame?” asked acting Magistrate Elwood Watts. “Is he employed by someone to play football? Anybody can be considered a footballer once he can stand behind a ball and kick it.”
At that point the accused’s mother, who had been crying, raised her hand to speak. When she addressed the court, she stated categorically: “I am his mother. He will be going nowhere, Sir. No football, no nothing . . . except it is with me or to church.”
“That is the voice of his mother and his surety and that is what the court will yield to,” Watts responded.
The teen was ordered to report to a police station every Friday by 9 a.m. and to be “off the streets of Barbados between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m.”
“Until this case is adjudicated, 7 o’clock at night you have to be home,” warned the acting Magistrate.
The case was adjourned until October 29.