Sixteen individuals who challenged restricted access to Laurys Bay have been found not guilty by the St. John’s Magistrate’s Court after the prosecution failed to present any witnesses.
Attorney-at-law Mr. Boy, representing the group, described the ruling as a complete victory for the defendants. “The magistrate had set today for the trial. All witnesses were expected in court, but none appeared. No case was made, and the court declared everyone not guilty,” he said.
The case, which has been ongoing for nearly a year, arose from claims of trespassing on land leading to the traditional access route to Laurys Bay. Mr. Boy explained that under Antigua and Barbuda’s Physical Planning Act, all beaches are public and citizens have the right to access them, even when crossing private land. “If a landowner blocks access and sues someone for trespass, they are violating the law themselves,” he said.
The defendants, often referred to as “beach rights patriots,” are now free to pursue legal action for malicious prosecution or to recover costs incurred during the case. Mr. Boy suggested that compensation might be sought given the inconvenience and financial burden suffered over the past year.
The ruling has been hailed as a significant affirmation of public beach access rights in Antigua and Barbuda, reinforcing the legal protection of traditional entry points long used by the community.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
The ALP wants to giveaway our beaches to the foreign parasites and turn indigenous Antiguans into second class citizens, but nuttin tal go so. UPP must win this election; Antigua for Antiguans!
As an attorney I am moved to provide clarity in legal matters at time. The trial of the beach trespass case was set for hearing today. Apparently, the Prosecution did not present any witnesses so the case was dismissed for want of Prosecution. In that situation, you cannot say that the Defendants were found not guilty. There was no trial so the innocence or guilt of the defendants were not determined. Just setting the record straight for those not familiar with the law.
This was really a waste of time and hopeless case and was badly prosecuted by the police. We know that ALL beaches in Antigua and Barbuda are legally public, extending from the water up to the high-water mark, regardless of neighboring hotel or private development. Under the Physical Planning Act of 2003, property owners cannot legally prevent public access, and they must allow access through their property if it is the only route, ensuring free passage for everyone. Thank God Papa Bird ensured this.
I bet anyone the ridiculous ABLP govt is going to appeal if they win. Don’t let them people, VOTE THEM OUT!!!!
Writer of this article: have you never heard of Lawyer Bowen? He is the deputy leader of UPP for Christ sakes!! Referring to him as Mr Boy is disrespectful. Since you are so flippant with people’s name, I expect to see you refer to the PM as Mr Gas. That would be an apt name
Stand up for our rights to the beach ⛱️
The beach trespass case was discontinued this morning for want of Prosecution. The Prosecution failed to provide witnesses so the Magistrate dismissed the case. However, to say the defendants were found not guilty is a misnomer. There was no trial so the issue of guilt or innocence did not arise. The defendants were therefore discharged. Just to clarify the legal position.
@Charles Tabor
THANKS FOR CLARIFYING!
WHAT THE HELL…! …WHAT ‘…KANGAROO NEWS STORY’ IS THIS?
WHO IS THE ATTORNEY-AT-LAW ‘…MR BOY?
***
This seems more like a ‘…KANGAROO NEWS STORY.’
***
THE COUR NEVER DECLARED ANYONE ‘…NOT GUILTY.’
***
FIRST:
From professional knowledge and practice, ‘…COUNSEL CHARLESWORHT TABOR’ is correct.’
THE DEFENDANTS WERE ONLY ‘…DISCHARGED FROM THE COURT’S JURISDICTION.’
***
WHY?
(i) ‘…THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL TRIAL:
(ii) …THE PROSECUTION LED NO ‘…EVIDENCE IN CHIEF:
(iii) …THE ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, ‘…MR. BOY’ [Paragraphs 2: 3: 4]:
(iv) …HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO ‘…CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES: or
(v) …PROSECUTION ‘…RE-EXAMINING WITNESSES.’
***
WHAT HAPPENED?
(a) …THE COURT, SEEMINGLY DISATISFIED THAT THE PROSECUTION: was
(b) …IN A ‘…TIME-WASTING MODE: only
(c) …DISMISSED THE ‘…COMPLAINT WITHOUT OATH: overzealously
(d) …FILED IN THE NAME OF THE ‘…COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (Atlee Rodney): who
(e) …NEGLIGENTLY: never
(f) …CAUSED THE COURT TO ISSUE ‘…WITNESS SUMMONS: to
(g) …COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF THE WITNESSES: thus
(h) …SEEMINGLY ‘…RECKLESSLY GAMBLED’ ON THEIR ‘…VOLUNTARINESS: and as
(i) …THERE WERE NO ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF ‘…WITNESS SUMMONS: the
(j) …PROSECUTOR COULD NOT APPLY TO THE COURT: for
(k) …THE ISSUANCE OF ‘…BENCH WARRANTS: for
(l) ..THE ‘…ABSCONDING WITNESSES.’
***
WELL DONE:
MAGISTRATE, ‘…YOUR WORSHIP, ANDREW M. MIGHTY.’
***
You have just exposed: inter alia
(a) ‘…PROSECUTORIAL WEAKNESSES:
(b) …MEDIOCRITY: and
(c) …INEFFICIENCY.’
***
WHAT THE HELL…!
***
This case seems like it’s never ending. I feel like this will cause mess during our election. But the UPP is never ready so yeah.
Wait, this case still going on? I thought all that shii was over and we just focusing on election. ABLP seems to have a lot on their page
More incentive to go out and look people trouble
Comments are closed.