The gun possession case involving Philmore Davis – son of Oppositionand Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Phillips Davis – has been delayed yet again.
Davis, is charged alongside three other men.
Davis, 33, of Colony Village; Matthew Davis, 22, of Westridge; Lavant Gibson, 27, of Sandyport and Don Davis, 26 of Westridge, were originally charged back in November 2017, after police allegedly found a .380 pistol with seven bullets inside the glove box of the car they were driving.
Yesterday, the group appeared before Magistrate Carolyn Voght Evans, however, prosecutor Sergeant Bridgette Strapp said, she was not in possession of “exhibits” and stated that she was new to the case.
The prosecutor asked the judge for another adjournment to add two other witnesses.
Damian Gomez, who represents Davis said, there was no excuse for the prosecutor to not have the exhibits, and further argued that the defense counsel had yet to receive a summary of material evidence from the prosecution.
“These are serious matters,” Gomez lamented.
“This case is an embarrassment for my client, which has continued for almost six months and we should proceed with prosecution. If they can’t proceed, it should take a different course, and if unsuccessful in my objection, I suggest this be the final adjournment.
“I suggested this in the first application. In the second application, I’ve not seen witness statements for either two witnesses. One would have thought sufficient time had elapsed for those statements to have been shared with council. It ought to be in prosecution knowledge, we have to see statement to prepare for cross-examination. We should have had it before trial began, given evidence that has been heard so far. It is apparent that the prosecutor has not prepared for trial today and it is compounded by the lack of disclosure of witness statements.”
Roger Minnis, who represented the other defendants, also rejected the application.
“The new application for two police inspectors I would say, is long overdue and tantamount to abuse of the process,” Minnis said.
“It is not as if these individuals came as a surprise to warrant inclusion. This was already acknowledged. Despite the application for adjournment the last time more than a month ago, we are still not in receipt of any statement or items they intend to introduce. We shouldn’t carry this burden any longer, swing the pendulum both ways for fairness.
“They (the prosecution) seem to be making up as they go along. One of my clients traveled from North Carolina, its costly and time away from his job may jeopardize his employment.”
In her ruling, Magistrate Vogt-Evans said, she would give the prosecution some time to familiarize herself with the case, as she is new. However, she advised the prosecution to have its witnesses present on the next adjournment.
The matter was adjourned to July 25.