“A Woman Says No, It’s A No”: How A Night At A Bar Became A Harassment Conviction & Why The Court Called It “Male Entitlement”

By Alric Lindsay

A man who insisted he had only been “concerned” for his former partner was convicted of a campaign of harassment in the Summary Court today, July 15, 2026.   He was given a three-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.  In addition to this ruling, the Chief Magistrate gave a pointed public warning about criminal conduct towards women that is “rooted in male entitlement.”

Regarding the criminal conduct, the 38-year-old man faced charges of common assault, causing harassment, alarm or distress, insulting the modesty of a woman, criminal trespass and stalking (two of these charges were not put to the man). The incidents stem from interaction at a bar to her home.

At the bar

Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions explained that the woman went to a bar on March 13, 2026, where she encountered the man at the entrance.

The woman ordered a drink and went to the bathroom.  When she exited the bathroom, she was confronted by the man who said in Jamaican Patois, “nun ah di man dem wey [you] deh wit nuh badda dan me” (none of the guys that you are with or that talk to you are better than me).

The man then took two pairs of the woman’s underwear out of his pocket and showed them to her. She responded, telling the man to leave her alone and walked to the dance floor.

Subsequently, the woman returned to the bathroom, and the man confronted her again, saying, “just so you know, you nah guh mek it home tonight” (you are not going to make it home tonight).  Reportedly, the woman felt fearful and tried to call a friend for assistance, but was unsuccessful.

She returned to the dance floor, where she was approached by the man who asked her to dance with him. She refused, and he walked away from her.

The man returned and grabbed the woman by the throat, leaving her fearful of leaving the bar.

She then told someone at the bar she was harassed by her ex.  Someone then escorted her to her car.

When she got to her car, the man was standing there.

The good Samaritan helped the woman into her car, but when he did so, the man made repeated unsuccessful attempts to open the car door. She then drove home.

At her home

When she arrived at her home, she noticed several missed calls and disrespectful messages from the man. As a result, she blocked him on WhatsApp.

Regarding the messages, the man sent her a photograph of her own bed, along with the caption “easy target.”

A week later — and while already on police bail — the man went to the complainant’s home, in breach of a condition that he must not interfere with the woman or come within 100 yards of her or her residence or workplace. He only left when a male friend stepped towards him.

The defence

The man’s defence attorney accepted the facts as stated by DPP Crown Counsel and that his client accepted the incidents were “serious.”

However, the defence attorney said the incidents “stemmed from a love affair gone wrong.”

The defence attorney added:

My client was involved in an intimate relationship for five months.

He has great love for the complainant.

He was hoping for this relationship to be lengthy.

He had high hopes for her.

He became emotionally attached.

The defence attorney then pressed the court to treat all of his client’s behaviour as reckless rather than intentional, citing the man’s emotional state and heavy drinking.

Told he had had “a few” drinks, the Chief Magistrate was unimpressed, saying: “A few is two or three drinks. Ten to twelve drinks is a lot of drinks.”

The Chief Magistrate then asked the defence attorney to explain why the man had the woman’s underwear in his possession at the bar.

In response, the defence attorney explained that the man took her underwear there to return it to her. This answer was unacceptable to the Chief Magistrate.

When the defence attorney argued the bed photograph had been taken during an earlier visit, the Chief Magistrate cut in:

It doesn’t matter when the picture was taken.

It was an intimate setting he was well aware of, with a threatening message.

The sentence

Prior to the delivery of the sentence by the Chief Magistrate, the defence attorney argued in mitigation that the man had already spent 22 days in custody and about six weeks on restrictive bail before sentencing and that he faces immigration consequences, with a work permit said to be pending and likely to be decided unfavourably. He added, “any custodial sentence would severely affect him.”

Delivering that verdict, the Chief Magistrate rejected the defence’s central argument. Of the “easy target” photograph, she said: “I find that it was intentional and it was meant to maximise her fear and distress.”

The Chief Magistrate also rejected the man’s claim that he had entered the home to ensure the woman was safe, and dismissed his explanation for carrying her underwear to the bar.

His conduct, the Chief Magistrate found, sprang from jealousy stemming from a maximum of a six-month relationship and from an attitude she summarised as “I did this for you, you owe me … you must talk to me when I say” — the “male entitlement” the Chief Magistrate condemned.

The Chief Magistrate set out the sentence charge by charge:

 • Harassment (Penal Code section 88, committed at night): a starting point of nine months under the sentencing guidelines, reduced with the full early-plea discount to six months, and then to three months for personal mitigation — The man being the sole breadwinner, with no previous convictions and some remorse.

 • Criminal trespass (committed at night, aggravated by his being on bail): a starting point increased to five months, reduced to two months after the plea and mitigation.

 • Common assault, and a further count: no separate penalty.

(Two additional charges were not put to the defendant)

The terms were ordered to run concurrently, for a total of three months.

Given the man’s uncertain immigration status, the court suspended that sentence for two years rather than imposing immediate custody.  The man has a right of appeal.

The Judge’s Closing Words

Addressing the man directly, the judge said: “A woman says no, it’s a no … Your excuses did not amount to anything that could be reasonably explained. You … would have placed any reasonable female in fear and distress.” She added that, as a father raising children with the assistance of the mothers, “you need to set a better example for these children.”

Note to readers

Legislation cited: Penal Code.