Hewitt gets nine months for loitering

A 54-year-old man whose criminal enterprise began over a decade ago was today sentenced to nine months behind bars at HMP Dodds after he pleaded guilty to two charges.

Dave Anthony Hewitt, who is recorded as having no fixed place of abode, went before Magistrate Kristie Cuffy-Sargeant where he admitted to loitering on February 19 at Forde’s Road, a public place, and was unable to give police a satisfactory account of himself.

Hewitt also confessed that on the same day, he was in possession of apparatus fit and intended for the misuse of cocaine.

Police were at Forde’s Road, Clapham around 3:45 a.m. when they spotted Hewitt, who was dressed in all black and carrying a bag, hurrying along the road.

He was stopped and asked to give an account for being in the area at that time.

Hewitt told lawmen that he was on his way home. When asked his address, he answered that he lived on Rockley Beach.

It was while police were speaking to him that they recognized he had a bulge protruding from the waist of his pants. The observation was pointed out to him, at which time Hewitt turned and took off at “top speed” in the area of Flagstaff.

While he was being pursued, he pulled an object from his waist and threw it over a guard wall.

Police prosecutor Sergeant Janice Ifill said Hewitt was subsequently apprehended and the object he had disposed of – a cigarette box containing a plastic bottle with a brown residue inside and wire mesh at the top – was retrieved.

“It’s a cocaine pipe,” Hewitt, who is known to the law courts, told police at the time.

Addressing Magistrate Cuffy-Sargeant this morning, he pleaded guilty to both charges because he wanted “everything to be over with”.

He said while he did have the drug paraphernalia, he did not agree with the loitering charge.

“I was on my way home. I was now coming from Brittons Hill . . . and I took a short cut,” he said, arguing that if he had stopped in the area then he would have loitered but he was walking at the time.

“I did not stop,” he contended.

“I is 54 years old, Ma’am, and I have been using drugs for more than 34 years. I would like a little help, Ma’am,” Hewitt said as Cuffy-Sargeant examined his conviction card which listed offences dating back to 1992.

Most of those charges and convictions showed that Hewitt had a propensity for loitering and theft.

He was then sentenced and ordered to enroll in the drug rehabilitation programme at the St Philip penal institution.

6 Responses to Hewitt gets nine months for loitering

  1. Carson C Cadogan February 21, 2017 at 7:54 am

    It still boggles my mind how in 2017 the Royal Barbados Police Force continues to use this RACIST PLANTOCRACY LOITERING LAW against Black people. This Law was created by the White Planter class to keep Black people off their property no matter what the circumstance.

    And how can a man be charged with Loitering in a Public place? If the Barbados news media would spend some of their time questioning the use of these idiotic antiquated laws targeted at Black people we would be better off.

    The news media spends too much of their time being Public relations arms for the Barbados Labour Party.

    Reply
  2. Donild Trimp February 21, 2017 at 10:14 am

    “Police were at Forde’s Road, Clapham around 3:45 a.m. when they spotted Hewitt, who was dressed in all black and carrying a bag, hurrying along the road”

    and

    “He was stopped and asked to give an account for being in the area at that time”

    If the legal definition of loitering is “to remain in or hang around an area for no obvious purpose; specifically to linger for the purpose of committing a crime” I cannot see how the above as loitering.

    Running away from the Police while being questioned does create suspicion but where was the loitering in the above story?

    Can the Police present “alternative facts” and convince the Magistrate that there is no need to follow the law?

    Reply
  3. Lennox Hewitt
    Lennox Hewitt February 21, 2017 at 10:38 am

    We don’tknow or want to know he or d other one up dodds so don’t call me mold n tel me i see ya cousin gone up we never see or hear bout he yet .

    Reply
  4. Carson C Cadogan February 21, 2017 at 10:59 am

    “….. hurrying along the road”

    How can someone be “….. hurrying along the road” and still be charged with Loitering?

    And he gave up his rights so that the Magistrate could lock him. This is a case the Magistrate should have thrown out, not lock up the man.

    The Oxford dictionarty defines “Loiter” as
    “Stand or wait around without apparent purpose.”

    Reply
  5. Carson C Cadogan February 21, 2017 at 11:01 am

    Sorry should be “Dictionary” on line 6.

    Reply
  6. Donild Trimp February 21, 2017 at 2:36 pm

    Carson, loitering can also be defined as “travel indolently and with frequent pauses” but I do not see that in the story either so the Magistrate must be using some other “alternative fact” to reach the guilty verdict of loitering.

    Based on the report, ” —- hurrying along the road” is not loitering.

    Maybe the reporter left out part of the circumstances that led up to a charge of loitering.

    Could be a case of poor journalism.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *