A prominent local butcher may be called upon to appear before the Kingstown Magistrate’s Court to say what he knows about an allegation that he bought two stolen goats from a Cedars man.
Carl Young, 68, on Tuesday pleaded guilty to a charge that between Feb. 2 and 3, he stole two ewe goats — value EC$520 — the property of another villager.
He told Senior Magistrate Rickie Burnett that butcher Terry Gibson paid him EC$160 for the animals.
Young told the court that Gibson had “underpaid” him, giving him EC$40 less than his asking price.
The defendant told the court that by the time he took the police to Gibson, the butcher had already slaughtered the goats.
“You’re talking about Gibson, the butcher?” the magistrate said.
“Hold on,” the magistrate said and asked which police officer had conduct of the matter.
When the police officer identified himself, the magistrate said, “Having regard for what he is saying, why is Mr. Gibson not before me?”
The police officer said that they went to look for the well-known butcher but did not find him.
“You all have to lock up the men who are buying these things. I keep saying it over and over and over again.”
The police officer told the court that he plans to arrest Gibson.
The magistrate said that persons continue to steal animals because there is a ready market for them.
“And I’m always seeing the guys who are stealing and not the guys who are buying.”
The magistrate said that he knows Gibson and that Gibson is a well-established butcher, adding that he should not be buying “these types of animals from these types of individuals.
“Clearly, that’s where the market is, it seems.”
Burnett, who was recently elevated to senior magistrate, was previously magistrate for district 2, which sits in Mesopotamia, Biabou, Colonarie and Georgetown.
He said that in that district there is a problem with these types of offences.
“To the extent that his name (Gibson) has been called in this court, I have to address him. This is not right,” the magistrate said.
Young asked for a chance to pay a fine but the magistrate said that people commit these crimes then come to court and talk about paying.
“If you had the money why didn’t you go and buy it,” the magistrate said.
He remanded Young to prison until next Tuesday for sentencing.
Very outrageous, very enept, double standard , unprofessional are some of the terms that I will use to describe the the action of the police who investigated the matter of an alleged praedial lacenry involving Terry Gibson. If the police cannot find this well known butcher he should not be in charge of police matters. The officer knows where Mr.Gibson resides, where he conducts his business. Why was he not able to be located? Was a follow up done? Why his butcher outlet located in Kingstown was not checked for hia presence. It’s a known fact that affluents from Mr.Gibson abbatoir is allowed to polute the nearby river unabated. Why is in the health department never pull Mr. Gibson over for violating the the environment protection Act? Is it bacuse he has influential friends in government? This is really substandard police work. The health department and the department of justice should conduct some serious investigation regarding the manner in which the police allowed an alleged wrong doing by Mr.Gibson to get away scotch free and unpunished . In addition, for poluting the river is another serious issue warrants a serious investigation. Is this a case of Mr. Gibson being protected by his friends in Government?
Sounds like you have a grudge against the man and want to stir the Sh-t for him.
Here is the answer, Mr Gibson is an alleged ulp supporter.
Alleged by who? only by you Bacchus. Now if you said he supplied DREGs with 10lb of beef tenderloin every week that I would believe.
I am so in agreement with my learned colleague. To stop issues of praedial larceny (and infact, any related issues of theft), one must also address the buyers of stolen goods. I appreciate the fact that the Senior Magistrate has asked for the attendance of the alleged buyer, noting one’s innocence before proven guilty. If proven guilty, I hope the court sends a message that will resonate within society that “the upholder is worse than the thief.”
Thank you Senior Magistrate for ensuring that justice is not only being done but is also being seen to be done. Keep up the good legal work.
While I stongly agree that the “upholder is worse than the thief,” since the magistrate has already made up his mind about Gibson, without hearing from Gibson or his lawyer, he should recuse himself from this case.
“Dem say” should never be used to convict someone. If you don’t believe me, ask Yugge.
It is obvious that the case would have been transferred as it was!
So if you sell me something and I do not know it was stolen,the judge are saying people should be arrested.How would people know it is a stolen goods.These judges is full of sht.
The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of law. So the prosecution must still prove the elements of the charge, one being that you had knowledge that the goods were stolen. It is not automatic that once you buy goods that are stolen that you be found guilty of purchasing stolen goods.
As an expert buyer and butcher the actions will be judged on if the buyer made proper enquiries as to the ownership of the animals. Also the seller should have had credentials which should have been recorded in a book or device by the buyer. If the animals were offered below market value and if the buyer bought them way below market value that would be a serious pointer considered by the court.
If a deal is to good to be true it is just that, to good to be true and the buyer being a professional should know that.
C. ben – David was quite right about the magistrate, the comments he made in open court should never have been made. This was further evidence of inexperience [perhaps even stupidity] […]
I shudder to think how the law was applied when the magistrate was a policeman.
Each charge has elements. I merely advised that one such element will be knowledge that goods were stolen at time of purchase. I have no facts to make any determinations and will therefore not inject any opinions or emotions as to the butcher’s mens rea or actus rea if he is infact involved. At this stage, its allegations.
@everyman is a king. Yo paying a man 160 fu two goats and he accepts? Then yo know he thief dem.
Well done your judgeship! We need to get this thief of animals under control in SVG and these butchers are mostly responsible for it.
Brown Boy, that is a nasty statement to make because unless you have direct knowledge of butchers buying stolen animals you should hold your evil tongue.
I like how small minded some of you are on this forum and quick to rush to judgement over people’s comments. Nobody said the butcher was guilty. The judge said that the butcher needs to be in court to answer questions based on the statement made by the accused. To that I was saying is the right move by the judge. How else would you get to the root of the problem? If these thieves do not have a market in these butcher don’t you think it would help to prevent the problem of theft of animals? This is basic common sense.
I doubt these were the first animals sold by Carl Young.
Why not simply issue a bench warrant for Mr Gibson then demand the police go get him.
Vince lawyer you should better if you are a bonafide lawyer and not a pseudonym. The law states that in order to transact business as the one that involves Mr. Gibson, one must possess a farmer’s lisence. […] Mr Gibson. Is in the business of buying and selling animals or small ruminants should and ought to have known that the fair market value of the animal is much more than what he [allegedly] paid for the animal. He [allegedly] paid less than what is considered a possibility that the animal was obtained by praedial larceny. So Mr Lawyer I would have like to have you as my opponent and friend on the stand debating the matter and see who would have been victorious. What I find in St Vincent there are too many mediocre lawyers, as a result, the profession is being debased as can clearly see from the person who professes to be a Vincy Laywer. It is necessary to remember that the preponderance of the evidence here is weighed against the balance of the probabilities in order to determine guilt or innocence. […]
It was very difficult to read your response based on so many grammatical errors. Anyways, though I do not have the Criminal Code at hand, tell me where I erred in stating the law. Although statute will specifically state the law in relation to handling stolen goods, the elements generally it consists of four elements: (1) the property must be received; (2) it must have been previously stolen; (3) the person receiving the property must know it was stolen; and (4) the receiver must intend to deprive the owner of his or her property.
Also, you can are clearly wrong in listing your standard of proof. In criminal matters, which this will be one, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and not balance of probabilities. You went off on a tangent that is so erroneous.
My comments related to commending the Senior Magistrate for stating that the buyers of goods were also brought before the court. In addition, I stated unequivocally that the presumption of innocence will be in Mr. Gibson’s favor and I also stated inter alia that one of the elements of the charge will be knowledge.
Ndpite, now what says you?
This case is not a civil matter where the plaintiff will have the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. A simple google search would have clarified issues you clearly have no idea about.
You don’t just buy any and every thing someone is selling.
It’s Mr Gibson responsibility to find out the true onwers of what he is buying especially if these type of events are common, maybe Mr. Young don’t even own a dog I don’t know but I won’t buy London bridge just because someone wants to sell it to me.
Is this a case where some elements of society are above the law? [If what is alleged is true,] is it reasonable to assume that Mr. Gibson had no idea that animal was stolen and that the price he was paying was less than the fair market value? Was Mr Gibson required to show proof of ownership before he [allegedly] bought the animal? Would a reasonable, prudent person conclude that Mr. Gibson has broken the law with respect to the buying and selling of animals […]?. If so, he should be made to answer […]e.
Comments are closed.