Defence spars with judge over indictment amendment

JUSTICE CHESTER Stamp yesterday shot down a move by murder accused Everton ‘Beachy Stout’ McDonald’s defence team to have him freed by way of a no-case submission, with the courtroom subsequently descending into chaos.

McDonald, 69, is charged along with co-accused Oscar Barnes, 39, with the July 20, 2020 murder of Tonia, McDonald’s second wife.

The men also pleaded not guilty yesterday to conspiracy to murder after Stamp granted an amendment to the prosecution to update the indictment relating to the conspiracy count.

McDonald’s attorney, Christopher Townsend, told the court that they were too far down the wicket and there is a serious chance and possibility of injustice against his client as there was a ‘golden thread’ that runs throughout the evidence put to the jury pool.

“As Your Lordship is aware, there is no fetter to prevent us from making a no-case submission any time after the evidence has been put before the court,” Townsend said, as he also accused the Crown of shifting the goalpost.

The prosecution, when asked by the judge for their position, said they were taken by surprise by Townsend’s submission.

BUILD-UP FOR CLASH

That suspense was short-lived as Stamp said, “There is a case to answer ... . I permit you to make further submission if you are so advised.”

That was seemingly the build-up for an ugly verbal sparring match involving a defiant Vincent Wellesley, who represents Barnes.

Wellesley started out by telling Stamp that, in relation to the amendment to the indictment, he has descended into the arena with regard to exchanges between the bench and the Crown.

He asked that, in light of the amendment, he needed to make an application on behalf of his client, to have three witnesses be recalled.

Stamp said, “I’ve heard you ... . There has been no concrete circumstances shown by the defence where the injustice could result from the amendment.”

“The application you just made is refused,” Stamp sharply told Wellesley.

“My Lord, My Lord, I didn’t hear you ... .What is the basis, My Lord? No ... my lord, respectfully, I can ask you. Your Lordship, if I may address you, this is not a court of tyranny. Your Lordship has made a ruling,” Wellesley said.

“If I make a ruling, I expect you to abide by that ruling,” Stamp said.

“You do not wish for me to address you and so from the beginning of this trial, you have consistently prevented me from addressing you and I need to address you on behalf of Mr Barnes. My Lord, this is a murder trial and right now the Privy Council is dealing with a case now and the issue is fairness, so I am asking you, My Lord, respectfully, to allow for fairness to emanate through this trial,” Wellesley said, with voice raised.

Stamp immediately called on senior defence counsel Ernest Davis to rein in Wellesley.

UGLY TURN

“Counsel in charge, senior counsel, you have to take charge of what is going on here,” Stamp said.

“My Lord, no, no. I need to address that for the record.You have allowed Mr Townsend to address you without getting permission from Mr Hamilton, his senior. Every time I get up to speak to you on behalf of Mr Barnes, you invite Mr Davis to muzzle me. I’m askingYour Lordship to desist !” Wellesley said.

Things took another ugly turn when the defence duo then got into a spat, leaving other attorneys, their clients and the Crown stunned.

“Mr Davis should stop. I need to know if Mr Davis is representing Mr Barnes or he is working with the Crown!” Wellesley said.

Townsend himself had to step in as referee, begging the parties to desist and asking the court for a 30-minute break for tensions to die down.

“The last few utterances by Mr Wellesley are entirely out of order,” Stamp said.

“My Lord, I’m in charge and I will take over from here,” Davis said.

“Look here, we can’t be doing this. It’s not acceptable. Stop. Stop. End now. Please return to your seats,” Townsend begged of the attorneys.

Things did not end there as Wellesley was soon after seen dragging documents from Davis in full view of the presiding judge.

The jury pool was invited to take their seats and the prosecution began its closing arguments.

In a PowerPoint presentation, the seven-member jury was shown the technology mapping the whereabouts of the accused and their communication on the day Tonia was murdered.

“That is why cell phone and cellsite data was important in attributing this number (shown on screen) to Mr McDonald ... the science is showing us what happened,” the prosecuting attorney outlined.

She told the jury that giving evidence in court is not a test of who you are, citing that some of the witnesses were calmer or bolder than others.

“It is difficult for most people to remember what they did last week, last month or last year ... . Not everybody is comfortable even speaking before other people or presenting themselves to strangers, especially in a setting like this … . Different people present themselves in different ways,” the prosecutor said.

She begged the foreman not to hold it against the witnesses.

“We ask you to accept all prosecution witnesses,” she said.

The prosecuting attorney told the jury that the background and motive behind Tonia’s murder was that McDonald believed she was giving him ‘bun’.

“We all know what name bun in this country ... . Not Yummy Bun. She cheated on him and this led to the desire of him to have her seriously harmed and later killed,” the prosecution outlined.