A Redemption Sharpes man says the two women “friends” he invited over last Friday, had no objection until he decided to spend Monday night with only one of them.
That decision resulted in Alisha Charles, with whom Daniel Laidlow has a 10-month-old child, apparently becoming jealous.
When Laidlow refused to open the bedroom in which he had locked himself with the other woman, whose name was not given in court, Charles climbed over the partition of the bedroom and tossed a book at him.
The enraged man responded by punching Charles in the face, sending her to hospital for a night.
At the Kingstown Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, Laidlow pleaded guilty to a charge that on Monday, July 15, at Redemption Sharpes, he assaulted Charles, causing actual bodily harm.
He told the court he is a carpenter, who has been employed with BRAGSA, a state agency, for 10 years.
The father of two children, 8 years old and 10 months old, made it a point that the children have different mothers.
He, however, denied that unlike what the prosecution stated in the facts presented to the court, he was not the one who initiated the communication that led to Charles coming to his house last Friday.
Laidlow told the court that Charles sent him a text message on Friday saying that she was coming by.
He said their relationship ended years ago and their 10-month-old child is the result of an “on and off relationship”.
The man told the court he told Charles that another woman was at his house and she said that was not a problem.
Laidlow further said Charles told him that he and the woman could stay in one room and she and the child in another.
Senior Magistrate Rickie Burnett asked Laidlow if he agreed to that and he told the court yes, adding, “Is my place”.
He said that on Monday, he, Charles and the child were in a bedroom having fun while the other woman was in another room.
The man said that when he went into the other room with the other woman and locked the door, Charles started to argue, scaling the partition and tossing a book at him.
“Me ain’t dey with none ah them,” Laidlow told the court, adding that both women are his “friends”, saying that is the status of all the other women in his life.
Of Chambers, Laidlow said: “She does just carry on with some ways I does can’t put up with.”
Asked if he was still in love with Charles, Laidlow said, “I love her but not in love with her.”
Burnett commented that every time he come to court something new happens.
“This is a brand new one altogether,” Burnett said, adding, “Mr. Laidlow, what you did to her can’t be right.”
Laidlow said that after punching Charles he went to get her some ice, which she placed over her eye.
He said that everything seemed to be fine and Charles and the other woman “were there communicating”.
He, however, said that because he decided to stay in the room with the other lady, Charles started complaining.
Laidlow told the court he enjoyed the thrill of being in a house with two women but not the fact that he punched Charles.
Meanwhile, prosecutor Police Constable Corlene Samuel told the court that while some women younger than her might say differently, she would not tolerate such a relationship.
“I am a bit lost for words because this is new,” Samuel said, adding, “I will not accept this.”
She said that the only mitigating factors in the case were the early guilty plea and the fact that he has no previous convictions.
The prosecutor said that having the two women at the house at once would have invariably led to friction.
Meanwhile, counsel Ronald Marks, who was asked to weigh in on the issue, said that while the situation was unusual the elements of sentencing remain the same.
He said that Laidlow has shown genuine remorse for his actions but noted the level of provocation when Charles tossed the book at Laidlow.
“He shouldn’t try those strokes,” Marks said of Laidlow’s decision to have the two women at the house at once, as emotions would be involved.
When the magistrate asked him if he would invite two women to his house at once again, Laidlow said, “Ah might ha’ fuh settle for one now.”
Laidlow told the court that he has been working at BRAGSA for 10 years and would like to continue in his job to provide for his children.
He told the court he would like to compensate Charles and offered EC$700.
The magistrate ordered him to compensate Charles in the sum of EC$750 and bring the money to court by tomorrow, Wednesday.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the complainant’s surname.
Seems like violence against women is not treated very seriously in SVG. It is like this whole incident was treated as a big joke. Sad.
Violence against anyone is unacceptable. I understand the prevailing social conditions in SVG dictates that extra measures need to be implemented to ptotect women. However if the details presented are correct then women also need to learn that a ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Do not hit anyone because you have no control over their reaction. A slap might be returned with a box or worse
Very true Truevincy. These people and thier “different” relationship to eachother is actually thier own business. It may be an instance where observers can say: “If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. If one of them or more could see what this relationship could lead to, maybe they should have walked away. Nevertheless, finding themselves in that relationship, it was actually the woman who threw the book who was at fault. What if it was a rock? Would it only be recognized that she has fault if it were a rock and it did actual harm, or should it have been a bomb?
These people have made a bed that they have to sleep in and the court may have to totally ignore thier strange relationship and just concentrate on the assault part.
We are all humans his actions was provoked, it doesn’t mean it was right but like they said they he seemed genuinely remorseful I can go into how Charles did agree to come knowingly someone is there then started violence but let me ask you something, do you always act in the right manner when provoked? You never did anything uncalled for through anger? It’s not as serious as it seems and while violence against women is no JOKE.. THIS situation IS one big joke considering the circumstances..
Wat Violence u talkin Bout she throw a Book at the Man
She throw d First Blow so wat he Suppose to Do?? One Box In She Ass
@DRE RUSS, wow! A woman throws a book at you and you would respond by punching her in the face?? Real classy! And criminal!
Dre Russ, you are obviously one of the backward idiot class to make such a statement.
Throwing a book is nothing like a strong man punching a woman in the face.
Jolly Green, you are right but in this world today when women are supposed to have all equal rights and equal pay, etc… it is obvious that she provoked this low-life guy. He certainly over reacted but if we are all equal before the law, she contributed to his behavior.
If it were Europe and a black refugee or Muslim perpetrated a crime against a woman or small boy, as has actually happened MANY TIMES IN EUROPE, they would set the migrant free and the native european would be blamed. That is how justice is working today. If the man thew the book at a woman he would certainly get some of the blame. But because it was a poor, weak, defenseless wronged woman…
Justice is supposed to be blind and even if someone who provokes a crime committed against themselves is a poor, weak, defenseless woman justice has to stay blind whether we like it or not, otherwise it will not work. The guy over reacted and is guilty but she certainly contributed. If she would not have become jealous and threw the book would she have gotten the hit? …Answer that!
More force that reasonably necessary.
You might be ‘Green,’ but you are ‘…Jolly Correct.’
VILLAGE RAM – DON’T CARE AH DAMN
This might be one time the ‘…Mighty Sparrow’ would sing, ‘…I don’t envy this Village Ram’ or even to shake his hand.
Admired the way Senior Magistrate Rickie Burnett handled this ‘…domestic case.’
Even though the possibility existed, there was clearly no intention by the defendant to start a fight with any of his female companions.
Yet he was clearly playing with fire and seemed not to have cared ‘…ah damn.’
He said he loved them , but was ‘…not in love with them.’ Still, inviting them over speaks to;
(i) ‘…Bit of stupidity;
(ii) …Fit of jealousy; and
(iii) …Emotional rage.’
Still must remember and be careful of ‘…16 stitches’ to the wrong body part [IWN: July 16, 2018].
He should be commended, a lady’s man.
THE VILLAGE RAM
Did not care a damn.
More suited to be called the ‘…Village Ram.’
Comments are closed.