Activists calls on DPP to take action on domestic abuse
Joel Walton, CEO of the Maritime Authority of the Cayman Islands
(CNS): The dismissal of another high profile domestic violence case has raised concerns with a local activist that cases are not being taken seriously by the director of public prosecutions and the courts, leaving victims afraid to press ahead. On Tuesday domestic violence charges against Joel Walton, the CEO of the Cayman Islands Maritime Authority, were dropped after the victim withdrew her complaint.
Walton walked away from court a free man when charges against him for assault, ABH, causing fear or provocation of violence and insulting the modesty of a woman were all dropped by the public prosecutor’s office. The court heard that Walton’s partner and victim did not wish to pursue the complaint and the DPP withdrew the charges, leading to the dismissal of the case.
Sandra Catron, who has been an outspoken advocate about Cayman’s problems with both child abuse and domestic violence, said she was concerned that all too often charges are dropped because victims are reluctant to press ahead.
“In many jurisdictions around the world the law has been changed to allow prosecution even without a complainant — given the complex psychology of abuse victims it’s quite understandable. Whilst I’m in no position to comment on what transpired in this situation, I hope the DPP will begin to take that approach as it relates to domestic violence,” she said.
Catron noted that this was the accepted norm for handling such cases in both the US and UK. “Victims need to know they will be protected no matter what. Most are not getting that reassurance,” she added.
The current legislation does provide for prosecution without a complainant if there is other evidence but in general cases are dropped in the local courts when victims refuse to testify.
During an earlier appearance last month the court had heard that the Walton case was under review when local defence attorney Charles Clifford, who was representing the MACI boss, said that his client and the complainant had been involved in counselling.
Austin Harris
He said the complainant did not want to proceed with the case, which was confirmed by Graham Hampson, the lawyer who appeared on her behalf. Clifford also revealed that a report from the counsellor who had been seeing the couple also recommended that the matter be resolved outside the courts.
Last month radio talk show host, Austin Harris, also walked away from court with no sanction in connection with domestic assault charges when he pleaded guilty at the last minute before his scheduled trial. Harris said he was “too drunk to remember” the details of the assault but took responsibility for it.
Although the radio presenter, who was sacked from his job with Rooster shortly afterwards, had admitted the crime, he walked away with no punishment or even a conviction when the magistrate said he already suffered “in the court of public opinion”.
Domestic abuse can take place for years with no one outside a home having a clue – just because you don’t see or hear anything doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
On another note is this the same Charles Clifford practicing law whilst also being the Head of Customs? When are we putting a stop to civil service persons having side line jobs and businesses? And yet the blame of unemployment will still be placed on the heads of expats.
What we have to realise is that we are all human and neither of us are perfect! Also, if the charges were withdrawn by the victim then leave it be! Sandra stop sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong!
Sandra should talk about her harassing and stalking case where she pleaded guilty and somehow managed to not get a conviction recorded against her according to the court’s report… the dropping of the word ‘harassing’ is a simple technical point that lawyers negotiated to have dropped. she should have gone to trial so the world could have known the grief she caused to the victim in that case who by the way was not happy with the outcome and possibly lost all faith…however, to be absolutely clear I am a strong advocate against domestic violence which is prevalent in the CI’s and we need to take a strong stance…but this woman needs to take a look in the mirror about her own transgressions before being critical of others…
Get your facts correct. Lawyer’s didn’t negotiate anything. DPP did that ALL on their own and if you wish to get a transcript of the sentencing hearing to hear the judge say that you can. Make sure you get your fact straight before making such statements.
It’s NOT a technicality it’s an actual offense. 1 of 5 for that section of the law – which has to meet legal criteria.
How, what does this have to do with an abuse victim being allowed to drop the charges and possibly being pressured to do so and the DPP’s job to not allow that to happen?
Am I the only person that is over the activists involvement in everyone’s personal lives. If the people choose to not pursue the case why is it her business and why is it that everyone is wrong, stupid or bullied that doesn’t agree with her. Its very possible that two adults decide to work on their relationship regardless of the situation. Domestic violence or not and I don’t condone any kind of violence but it is possible for people to end up in all kind of foolish situations and decide to forgive and move forward with their lives. We should discuss all of the cases the activist has plead guilty of this year after complaining about DPP wasting time and not doing her job when she was guilty of the crimes. We should spend some time focusing on her and discussing her, maybe when the shoe is on the other foot because she was certainly guilty and went to court and ask for forgiveness and leniency. Activist sometimes its because that its you fighting the cause people just don’t bother because you aren’t partial or unbiased most of the time. In this case go find the victim and help her not embarrass her more in public and on social media by discussing this situation that you weren’t privy to.
By all means work on the relationship — no one is implying that they should not. But, yes, many of us feel despite that there is obviously room to bring attention to the abuse of women in our society and the impunity that it often meets. It is time for us to recognise and treat it as the crime that it is.
It is because we do not recognize is it as crime that we allow perpetrators to walk free. Were we to recognise it as such, Walton and Harris would not have gotten off so lightly.
I like and have have always respected the contribution that Mr. Walton has made and continues to make, but every other civil who has had an arrest and charge has been suspended from work until the outcome of the trial. I thought that the Civil Service had clear policies on this. Why not in the case of Walton? If we had recognised it as a crime, neither would have walked.
I applaud Rooster for taking a stand as it sends a message that this is serious and will not be tolerated.
The Civil Service must do the same!
Sounds to me like you DO condone violence. Say what you want to say, but don’t pretty it up with misleading/contradictory statements.
One of the factors involved in many of these cases is use of alcohol. We also have too liberal attitudes towards imbibing alcohol, forgetting that it is a potent drug that alters mind and behaviour. Not to mention the devastating consequences long term use can have on physical health.
The DPP should be ashamed. Another sad day for the rights of women in Cayman.
You really should say rights of domestic violence victims; male, female and children.
If he ain’t done nuttin why he need counseling for then eh???? Some of you fool bad some men in Cayman believe women are like a Timex watch need a licking to keep on ticking!
Some do
Nice, 7:47 pm!!
How truly sad for you! because that answer could only come from a beater himself no worries forward me a P.O. box so I can send you a I am a Woman Beater T shirt and key chain and you will be set Star.
At least thanks to the internet, any web search of this man will come up with lots of hits about violence against women.
They should also out those past and current legislators who are known to be wife beaters! Remember the broken arm???
In most 1st world nations the victim dropping the complaint does not affect a prosecution for domestic violence. The reason is simple, such decisions by battered women are often the result of further physical, mental or economic abuse.
Men in this country so do get a pass. Then when a female kills one like the Little Cayman situation we when wonder what’s going on.
6 years for a brutal stab and slash killing is pretty much a free pass.
She left him to bleed to death and calmly went next door to sleep it off.
Out in 3 years with good behaviour and free to murder the next hapless sucker.
Not a big supporter of the RCIPS but they did they really get this wrong by charging this individual, However their investigation has been somewhat invalidated by its outcome. The Fix was already put in place in this matter from the time you saw board members who are personally confidants and Bro’s of the accused not recuse themselves when considering even to suspend Mr. Walton from his duties at MACI. Which by the way is the normal course of action in such matters. The subsequent statements from said board members and the Gov minister responsible for this statutory body, who sister inlaw by the way is employed in a very lofty post in MACI also was no surprise. While regular people face the gauntlet of dismissal even upon their suspension, certain officials always will get the benefit of the doubt of their actions criminal or otherwise. While not judging Mr. Walton’s guilt or innocence the disparity in the way certain individuals are treated on this island is very distinctive and clear when it come to the law. Unfortunately its situation just like these that validate corruption accusations and the presence of foreign nationals in our law enforcement apparatus. As for the God quoters who try justify the actions of men by calling for him to take action on their behalf. God does not sleep nor will he render assistance to wicked men. He will however render final judgement on us all. We should ask him for mercy for our souls instead.
It really seems that there were a lot of witnesses to this case, based on all the comments in defense of Mr. Walton. What it really boils down to though, is this: Was the complainant abused? Was she hit, punched, cursed at? It doesn’t matter that he is a good man and nothing like this ever happened before. The point is, did it happen this time? If the answer is yes, then he, like anyone else should have to pay the consequences for the actions!! Simple. Was he abused? Then perhaps he has a case to bring against her. It bothers me, the comments that simply say, he’s a “good man” or “shut up, you don’t know what happened?” Do you know, were you there?
Domestic violence is a serious matter that needs to be taken out of the closet. Such violence is found in all socio-economic levels and is very destructive to children and families. Blanket denial does not help anyone.
As a victim myself it saddens me that so little attention is placed on this very real problem here on the island. Happy I was able to get the necessary protection (myself) as the police cant do anything until you, the victim, can afford a lawyer and obtain a restraining order OR until he beats you to a pulp and you have a real “problem.” Mine was verbal and apparently not sever enough to get real attention. No where else in the world treats domestic violence so slightly.
I know Joel Walton and respect the man based on what I know. That respect will not be diminished just because someone made an accusation against him. People are innocent until proven guilty and the issues of domestic violence are very complex. In many cases, the only real victim is the accused.
There is verbal and physical abuse taking place. But there is also abuse of the criminal justice system by persons who seek to use it to further their own ends. What I do know from many years of experience dealing with these issues is that the truth is rarely ever told by the first complainants. Complainants are not necessarily victims of abuse, although in many cases they are; but, they are almost always the ones who got the worst of the altercation or situation and/or the ones who would like to use the law and authorities to further their personal agenda.
The worst thing about domestic abuse is the assumptions that are built into the issue. Why is there an issue of violence against women? I can understand violence as an issue, period. Not violence against women. Unless of course, violence against men, children, older persons, etc. is OK or of less importance. In my experience, women as just as likely to initiate violence as men. They often times are never satisfied with the results, even when the man does not retaliate, because in most cases it is obvious that the man simply restrained himself, or she simply got the worst of it. However, whether the man retaliates or not, many women rush to complain to the police; fear of being prosecuted, to create as much problem for the man as possible, create a record to be used later in court, or to further whatever agenda they had in the first place, all by using the police and courts.
Now I am not saying that is what happened in this case. I make no judgments about that and if Joel lost it and physically abused the complainer, there is no justification for that and he should be held accountable. But do we know what happened here? Should an innocent person suffer reputational damage simply because someone accused them?
The sad part of this is that there are really serious cases of domestic abuse occurring everyday. Women, men and children suffer. Some abusers know how to manipulate the issues discussed above to escape effective interventions of the authorities. So called ‘activists’ do not help these issues. They merely polarize the debate and create further injustices. For example, violence against women inevitably result in a system skewed towards women, and at the expense of men. The eventual victims are the children, when men withdraw, or the very women, when, out of frustration, the men decides to live up to the reputation with which they have been branded. A sober and objective discussion of the issue needs to take place in an environment where all issues can be aired, and not just from a perspective of ‘violence against women’.
There is a God and he knows Joel’s heart and what really took place with this incident. Praising God for allowing justice to take place for once in this country!!
Were you there?
Yes because God condones violence against women right? You bible thumping idiots REALLY get on my F***** nerves! STFU already!
Amen Brother!
I think you may be confusing God with SATAN
Or the Easter Bunny?
Joel is a hardworking and kind individual in all my years I have not heard him as much as shout at a woman. Leave the man alone and focus on unah own problems.
I too am hard working and kind. I would like to meet you and best you.
All you self righteous ppl come forward…… of that’s what I thought
You support violence on women then?
It is ok to abuse your family and friends it has been happening for years NORMAL.
In Jamaica it is also ok to take the virginity of your daughters after all it is your daughter
Anyone want to guess if this is OK in Cayman, happens all the time so it must be OK
Firstly did anyone go to court to listen to the matter? Probably not so stop making blanket statements when you dont know the facts of the matter.
I do agree domestic violence is a problem but we make matters worse when we speak without facts.
Congrats Joel live your life and continue to represent your country well in all things you do.
You said it best when you said ” continue to represent your country” I am satisfied with your statement 🙂
I am very happy for Mr. Walton that this nightmare is over. What the DPP needs to do is go and arrest the real wife beaters that sit in that ivory tower everyday built out the taxpayers money.
This man is a good man and deserves that respect, if he was a woman beater it would have come out long before now.
Congrats Joel don’t worry about what people say you and your family know the truth and that’s what matters!!
God Bless you always!!
I have known this gentleman for years and he has never once hit a lady. People need to get the entire story before they start speaking.
The right decision was made in this case and people need to .ind there own business.
How do u know???
Its very simple. It should not be left to the victim to oress the charges. If the victim was assaulted in a public place by a stranger it is the police who would being the charges, so why is or should domestic violemce be treated any differently?
Here is a start. Being drunk is not a defence or excuse. Men who get drunk and hit women tend to get drunk a lot. Also just because the wife/girlfriend says she has forgiven, patched up, does not want her man punished etc, should be completely ignored and barred from the court evidence – such statements are often the result of further physical, mental or economic abuse.
So did he beat his wife or did he not? I’m confused.
There certainly was evidence sufficient to charge him with it.
The only evidence you need to charge someone in these cases is a written statement of complaint against the other person. You do not need corroboration or physical evidence of violence. In fact, you do not need to even accuse the other person of physical battery in order to be charged for an assault.
Welcome to 1960.
Crown counsel should control the prosecution, not the complainant. Domestic assault cases should never be withdrawn, but prosecuted “with vigour”, even if it means the victim has to be subpoenaed to trial as a Crown witness.
Agreed; but, you should go after the complainer with equal vigour where evidence show that they lied in the first place to manipulate the system. The problem is that activists do not want that because they argue that it will discourage victims from coming forward. The problem is that without it people make false complaints in order to use the system for their own ends.
Catron has the gall to protest this when she herself was in Court recently harassing a male. How come she got off?
Actually she was charged with “annoying” the lesser of 5 charges and plead guilty to that. Surely you’re not comparing that to a physical assault or harassment? Noe the same and she wasn’t charged with it so always get your facts correct.
I love it when people challenge posters to get their facts right, and then get their own wrong.
Compass report on the trial:
“The matter first came to court in September 2012, when the defendant said she wanted a jury trial. At that time the charge was using an information and communications technology network to annoy or harass a named individual between May 27 and July 23, 2012.
The matter was sent to Grand Court, where she pleaded not guilty, and a trial date was set.
After the charge was amended to delete to word “harass,” Catron pleaded guilty to using an ICT network to annoy.”
She was charged with harassment – charge was amended as part of a deal whereby she changed her plea.
Nope! The DPP dropped the harassment charge and THEN she plead guilty. Seems you need to get your facts straight. Funny how you are calling people out on facts but have it all wrong. The DPP amended the charge on their own with NO indication of a plea deal at all.
Compass 1st June 2015:
“After the charge was amended to delete to word “harass,” Catron pleaded guilty to using an ICT network to annoy.”
THAT was not part of the plea deal as there was no deal. She just plead and proceeded to a sentencing hearing.
She didn’t get off she plead guilty and the judge decided to put nothing on her record.
That’s right, divert the blame on a woman who is trying to help. Are you a wife beater too?
Warning to all males in Cayman please don’t try this at home because unless you play ball with the UK and pay up your lodge fees, you will end up in jail for this type of domestic violence. Different strokes for different folks where is Mr Legge stand on this. Not a peep?
I find it difficult to comment because I think CNS will be very wary of lawyers looking at comments and seeing actionable statements. But let me try this: many of us knew from the start that this would be resolved outside the courts because we are not talking about a Dog City or Goat Yard guy with no money or influence and these women victims in these “upper socio-economic domestic violence situations” for better or worse just feel the need to say it was all a mistake etc etc and move on, maybe with a gift maybe not. Stir into the mix the fact that politics (in this case PPM) is involved and you know that no action will be taken. The Public Service Code of Conduct (which Mr Walton as the Head of the Maritime Authority falls under and is obligated to obey) says this: “A public servant must not at any time engage in any activity that brings his ministry, portfolio, statutory authority, government company, the public service or the government into disrepute”. Does this carry any weight or will the Board that oversees the Maritime Authority just turn a blind eye? No prizes for guessing right.
If the PPM could protect anybody how did poor Kenneth Bryan ever get charged?!
There are different levels of connections… and different levels of protection…
Exactly correct, 9:10.
I love this comment.
And there is NO corruption in Cayman Alden.
10:35, How thick are you? — REPEAT AFTER ME: NO ONE SAID WE DID NOT HAVE PROBLEMS NEEDING FIXING, LIKE EVERY WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.
Having said that, I don’t think this is a case of corruption — I think it is about attitudes that continue to fail to perceive the abuse of women as the crime it is, and the fact that our laws have not all caught up with more progressive thinking. For example, laws in other countries have been reformed so that in cases of abuse by partners, the case can proceed even if the complainant withdraws.
They protect who they want to. They had only used him to get elected. He is also not of the educated elite who the PPM thinks they are.
I suppose you live at the home with them both….guess all learnt it’s best to stay out of married people business…
Who brought the charges in the first place?
I agree wholeheartedly, 7:59. The Civil Service should take a page from Rooster’s action following the virtual dismissal of the Austin Harris case.
I would also like to see the law changed so that these cases can be prosecuted even if the complainant withdraws from the case.
Apparently Ozzy does not fall under that law either. The laws are there it’s just that no one enforces them.