Another “Urgent Trial” Delayed As Court Hears That DPP’s Witnesses Went On Vacation

By Alric Lindsay

An urgent trial before the Summary Court today, August 3, 2026, could not proceed after witnesses for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions —being civilian complainants and police officers — failed to appear.  This drew sharp criticism from defence counsel Amelia Fosuhene and attracted the attention of Magistrate Murray.

Miguel Gomez‑Martinez, who faces allegations of insulting the modesty of a woman and drunk and disorderly conduct, had been designated a priority trial, appeared before the court; his counsel, Amelia Fosuhene, opposed any further adjournment and pressed for the trial to go ahead. The DPP Crown Counsel sought the adjournment, explaining that summonses for the civilian witnesses — prepared and emailed to the court— had not in fact been served. In the circumstances, the witnesses had already planned vacations off-island.  In addition, DPP Crown Counsel revealed that there was no proof of service of a summons on the police officers.

It was emphasised in court that the trial date had been “hard fought” and that Gomez‑Martinez was warned the trial would proceed in his absence.  The commentary continued that, in the circumstances, DPP Crown Counsel “should have checked with their witnesses before Friday,” and that “to wait until the Friday before, just to check if your witnesses are coming… is a mystery.” It was added that adjournments of trials “should effectively… be the exception rather than the rule,” and that a trial date must be fixed with witness availability in mind.

Magistrate Murray observed that there were two occasions when the trial did not proceed — one was due to issues surrounding the defendant and now, due to issues with DPP Crown Counsel.  Despite the criticism of DPP Crown Counsel, Magistrate Murray granted the DPP’s application for an adjournment and listed the matter for a case‑management hearing on September 10, 2026.  Gomez’s bail was extended to that date.