Judge Blocks Media Publication Of Indecent Assault Against A Woman. Reporting Restriction Amended Following Successful Challenge By Media.

By Alric Lindsay

On May 1, 2025, a judge gave a detailed oral judgment regarding allegations of indecent and common assault against a woman by Michael Washington Mighty.  Mighty was acquitted of indecent assault and found guilty of common assault.  However, no conviction will be recorded for the common assault provided that he completes an anger management course. It should be noted that this matter is being published now only because the judge initially prohibited media coverage of the proceedings. When challenged by the media in May 2025, the judge amended the publication prohibition.

Background

In court, the judge noted that Mighty faced the above two charges at trial, both of which related to incidents that allegedly occurred at an address in George Town.

According to the judge, the incidents unfolded as follows:

1. Mighty allegedly cursed and shouted at the woman, calling her names, including stupid, and told her to get out of the premises.
2. Allegedly, the woman was grabbed by the neck and/or hand, and an attempt was made to push her out the door.
3. A person intervened to stop the alleged assault.
4. Police were called, and the woman was taken to the hospital for treatment.  She allegedly had neck pain and could not speak for a few days.
5. At the time of the police report for common assault, she took the opportunity to report another incident, which was an alleged indecent assault which took place in June 2022 where Mighty allegedly placed his hand on her vagina. 
6. Reportedly, she did not previously report the indecent assault because of a previous experience in another place where she made a report and it was not taken seriously.

Indecent Assault

As a result of the allegation in 6 above, the judge noted there were inconsistencies in the victim’s account.

The judge described the victim’s “inconsistencies” as follows:

1. The victim did not give a reason for not reporting the incident earlier.
2. Neither the victim nor her witness reported the indecent assault immediately.  Allegedly, she only told the police about the indecent assault in her third meeting with the police.  This was after she complained about the common assault.
3. Mighty’s colleague allegedly denied that the victim reported the alleged indecent assault to him. The judge took Mighty’s colleague as a “witness of truth.”

After considering the “inconsistencies” of the victim, the judge said she was not “satisfied” to the “required standard” that Mighty touched the woman on her vagina. 

Therefore, the judge acquitted Mighty of indecent assault.

The judge added that the media were prohibited from reporting any part of the proceedings discussing the alleged indecent assault.

Common Assault

Due to the allegations in 1 to 5 above, Mighty faced the charge of common assault.

In this case, the judge said she was satisfied that Mighty committed common assault when trying to remove her from the premises.

Regarding the possible sentence for common assault, Andre Wedderburn, Crown Counsel for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, recommended that the starting point should be a fine.

Wedderburn added that, “There doesn’t appear to be any aggravating factors to be considered” and “no residual scars.”

Wedderburn continued:

Perhaps Mr Mighty would benefit from some intervention in terms of anger  management or certainly skills to cope with resolving conflict.

In the circumstances, the judge said that Mighty would be subject to a 12-month probation order and must complete a course on anger management and conflict resolution.  Upon completion of the probation order, the conviction for common assault will be removed.

Media challenges the prohibition on reporting of indecent assault

Given the judge’s initial prohibition on the media publishing information on the assault proceedings, Blackbox Insights & Media sent correspondence via a WhatsApp press chat on May 1 and 8, 2025, requesting procedures for appealing against the judge’s prohibition.

On May 28, 2025, the court’s public information officer said:

• The defendant was charged with 2 offences as follows:

• Indecent assault
• Common assault.

• The Magistrate’s Order relating to charge 1 read – as endorsed on the cover of the Summary Court file:
• “Order that no report to be made in public domain regarding charge 1, given the nature of the charge and the specific nature of the allegations“.

• However, importantly, the Court notes that the defendant was acquitted in relation to the offence of indecent assault.
• Therefore, in addition to concerns relating to the complainant, the fact that the defendant was acquitted of the charge, is all the more reason not to have any report made in relation to this charge.
• The Court would be kindly grateful if you would be guided by the foregoing information.

On the same date, Blackbox Insights & Media copied other media houses via email so that they would be aware of the court’s rejection of the media’s challenge to the publication prohibition.

Blackbox Insights & Media also requested the relevant practice direction and law relied upon by the magistrate in reaching her conclusion to prohibit media publication.

Having been copied on the email, Cayman Marl Road responded, saying, “I’m happy to join a JR application challenging the courts on this.”

On May 31, 2025, the court’s public information officer sent a further reply as follows:

Good afternoon, Mr. Lindsay

• The Magistrate herein confirms:
  • The Court has reviewed the endorsement on the file in this matter, and has updated it to read as follows:
    • ” Order that no report be made in public domain regarding charge 1, that is likely to lead members of the public to identify the Complainant, given the nature of the charge and the specific nature of the allegations.”
  • All other endorsements as outlined previously, remain in place.
• Trusting this assists.”

This meant that the media could report on the indecent assault, but no reference could be made to identify the victim.

Author’s note

This challenge by the media demonstrates the importance of journalistic freedom.  Had the publication prohibition remained in place, the public would have been less aware of assaults against women and the need to curtail these assaults.

It is also now crucial for members of the Legislature to consider whether punishment for assaults against women needs to be increased so that those who commit these crimes are held accountable.  The Legislature should also implement a sex offender registry and an indecent assault registry, which should be made available to the public.  Otherwise, a false sense of security may develop and low or insignificant sentences for assaults against women may continue.

Share on Facebook

Post on X