Witnesses in Gilhuys case missing
- Lawyer says prosecution could face grave consequences
The two key witnesses in Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys’s traffic case have gone missing. This was disclosed by Police Prosecutor Denise Griffith yesterday after the matter continued before Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson.
According to the prosecutor, they are now finding difficulty in locating the witnesses for the matter.
Attorney at Law, Bernard De Santos, seemingly frustrated, said that the witness whom the prosecution is trying to locate is “a bus driver”. The lawyer added that not enough effort is being placed into the matter.
He further explained to the court that the six matters are “simple traffic matters” and the case should have dismissed already. De Santos explained that he was made to understand that the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) did not advise on these charges, which were instituted against Gilhuys.
However, Police Prosecutor Griffith said that the DPP did not specify if they should or should not continue with the matter. She admitted that certain aspects of the case were highlighted, but that no decision was taken by the DPP.
But De Santos interjected and told the court that the “offences” were never committed since the traffic rank never asked Gilhuys to produce the necessary documents. He said that the offence can “only” be committed if the documents were tendered to the police. The lawyer warned the prosecution that they were being “malicious and their attempts would have serious consequences” because all the charges were advised against by the DPP. The matter was adjourned for January 27.
Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys was slapped with six charges ranging from dangerous driving to driving without a fitness for the vehicle.
It is alleged that Gilhuys, on October 2, 2008, in Georgetown drove his vehicle PLL 4282, in a manner which showed that he did not have due care for other road users, which resulted in a motor vehicle accident at Mandela Avenue. He has since maintained his not guilty plead.
There was some confusion between the defence and the prosecution about the “documents which the magistrate had tendered”.
Gilhuys claimed that he had the documents before the accident. But the prosecutor noticed that the documents were only dated October 15. On his first appearance, the magistrate produced documents for a vehicle with license plate number PLL 4582 when the document should have had PLL 4282.
The Magistrate was reportedly involved in a motor accident, on October 2, when his vehicle (PLL 4282) collided with minibus BDD 2579. He had said the minibus stopped suddenly.