Magistrate Young: Full transcript is important

Kay Bacchus-Browne, the lawyer for popular radio talk show host, Elwardo “EG” Lynch, wants to know why there are omissions and gaps in the transcript of a matter that Lynch has before the courts.{{more}}

Lynch, host of the “New Times” programme, which is aired on Nice Radio, is charged with making statements on August 23, 2007, on air, which could cause fear and alarm among the public. The charge states that on the date in question, Lynch, during a broadcast, made statements about Assistant Commissioner of Police, Lenroy Brewster, and then government senator, Julian Francis.

Lynch is alleged to have stated that both men were seen on a beach on the Leeward side of the island in the company of Anthony “Que Pasa” Gellizeau.

When the matter was called up for hearing on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at the Serious Offences Court before Chief Magistrate Sonya Young, Lawyer Kay Bacchus-Browne argued that the transcript did not show what transpired throughout the entire programme. Bacchus-Browne was of the view that the matter was not a criminal case and even if the prosecution proved that the statements were false, it could not have caused fear and alarm. “No one cares about this statement. It only seems like the prosecution does,” Bacchus-Browne stated.

The prominent Lawyer added that there is evidence that Que Pasa had been invited to a beach party put on by Julian Francis in the past and he (Que Pasa) had given monetary donations to the Unity Labour Party. “We don’t even know when this incident happened and my problem is what the caller may have said. There is nothing which states this,” Bacchus-Browne further noted.

In responding to Bacchus-Browne, Director of Public Prosecutions, Colin Williams, stated that the talk show programme was interactive, with callers making their contributions. “It is not that we left out anything, but the dots in the transcripts could mean that a caller may have responded. It does not mean we left out anything,” Williams stated.

Commenting on the matter, Magistrate Young said she thought the entire transcript of what was said on that day would have been provided, even what was said by the callers. “If that was done then we could have dealt with what was irrelevant,” Young noted.

Addressing the DPP, Young said: “You have decided what is relevant for the defence. I don’t like a piece of transcript. I would like to see the whole transcript.” The magistrate added that since it was a “call-in” programme, it was important to get the full transcript and they could determine what were the relevant and irrelevant issues.

Young ordered that the DPP and Bacchus-Browne get together and decide what should be included in the transcript.

The matter was adjourned to Monday May, 3.(KW)