By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A MAN who believes a magistrate did not give him the opportunity to mount a defence in his $80,000 drugs, firearm and ammunition trial is appealing his conviction and sentence.

And while Court of Appeal judges have reserved their decision following arguments from the appellant and the Crown, two of the three judges yesterday said they believe the Deputy Chief Magistrate was “overindulgent” in allowing Edwidge John Milfrise’s case to go on for so long.

When arraigned in May 2005, Milfrise, of Marcus Bethel Way, faced a single charge of possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply, two counts of ammunition possession and four counts of unlawful firearm possession.

He denied the charges and his trial began in June 2006.

He was convicted in August 2011 by Deputy Chief Magistrate Carolita Bethell.

He was sentenced to 40 months in prison for the 78 pounds of marijuana found in his apartment on May 13, 2005 and given 46 months for the .38 pistol, Remington rifle, mini Ruger rifle, and Mac 11 handgun along with assorted ammunition.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Yesterday, the convict’s attorney Calvin Seymour argued that the magistrate had not afforded his client assistance in getting three witnesses to testify on his behalf.He noted that on a few occasions, based on the transcripts, his client had asked for opportunities to contact his three relatives.

And while he agreed with Justices Anita Allen and Christopher Blackman that the magistrate had consented to telephone calls, he said there was nothing on the record to indicate the calls were actually made.

He further said the appellant’s brother had agreed to testify but could not do so on short notice, as he was not off work until Sunday.

The attorney argued that the magistrate should have gone beyond allowing calls and issued a summons for the brother to appear in court.

He also noted that having five different lawyers during the trial did not help his client’s case.

Crown prosecutor Terry Archer argued that Milfrise had sufficient time to secure witnesses.

Justice Allen said the appellant had more than enough time to secure his witnesses and have them present for court, because the Crown closed its case against Milfrise in 2008.

She further noted that the then-attorney had not asked the magistrate to issue a summons.

The attorney only asked, according to the brother’s words, for more time and the court had granted an adjournment.

When Milfrise was expected to lead a defence in 2011, he did not.

“She was indulgent” the appeal court president said of the magistrate, adding that “many, many opportunities were given”.

Justice Blackman said the magistrate was “overindulgent” in the two years since the Crown closed its case.

He also noted that Milfrise was not an accused person who was representing himself, so his situation was not dire or one where exceptions could be allowed.

Justice Abdulai Conteh, however, had a different view.

He said he was “troubled” by the turn of events in the trial.

While understanding the magistrate’s “frustration” at the matter being delayed for so long, he said he believes that in the circumstances, she should have gone beyond the strict demands of her role and issued a summons for the sake of ensuring a fair trial.

He said a fair trial is a right guaranteed by the constitution to any person facing an indictment.

“A game was being played for five years in my view,” Justice Allen said. Justice Blackman agreed and said the matter was a case of overindulgence by the magistrate.

However, the court still reserved it’s decision on the matter.