The wife and I got into a big argument over this story yesterday. She adamantly disagrees with what has happened to this girl and feels the law is in the wrong. I on the other hand feel that sometimes in the pursuit of justice, we have to do things we don't like or agree with. Here are some of the facts. Take a look and let me know how you feel about it. Do you thinks it is right to lock up the victim of the crime in order to get them to testify even if they don't want to? There are many reasons a pregnant teenager ended up in jail a week before her baby's due date, a source close to the case said yesterday – and it wasn't just to make sure she shows up in court today to testify at the domestic assault trial of her boyfriend. Noellee Mowatt, 19, has been locked up for 11 days for a number of reasons, the source said:
She tried to run away from police, moving from shelter to shelter, lying about her name and whereabouts.
She skipped out on court when she was facing a shoplifting charge.
When Mowatt, who is due to deliver a baby girl Tuesday, was finally arrested, she didn't have anyone to post her bail.
And even though there were two warrants out for her arrest – a bench warrant for failing to appear at a January court date for theft under $5,000 and a material witness warrant – the source said
She tried to run away from police, moving from shelter to shelter, lying about her name and whereabouts.
She skipped out on court when she was facing a shoplifting charge.
When Mowatt, who is due to deliver a baby girl Tuesday, was finally arrested, she didn't have anyone to post her bail.
And even though there were two warrants out for her arrest – a bench warrant for failing to appear at a January court date for theft under $5,000 and a material witness warrant – the source said
Mowatt told police she wouldn't co-operate with them.
"She rebuffed," the source said.
"She told officers, `I will not come to court.' There was no recanting of the story. Her line was, `Whatever you do, I won't come to court.'"
Mowatt, who called police from a pay phone in December to report that her boyfriend, Christopher Harbin, 25, had assaulted her, was taken into custody April 1 and denied bail.
A judge issued a material warrant for her arrest on March 20 during Harbin's trial and police say they made several fruitless attempts to find Mowatt and serve her with a subpoena.
When Mowatt missed her court date in January – for allegedly stealing clothes from Designer Depot last year – the judge issued a bench warrant, the source said.
The bench warrant gives police the authority to arrest the teen and, say experts, leverage to persuade her to pick up a summons to court and testify at trial.
This case has caused a stir among politicians and women's advocates, who are grappling with how and why an alleged victim of domestic violence was detained in prison and the future implications of such drastic measures.
Criminal lawyer Alan Young said despite Mowatt's alleged refusal to appear in court, the warrants issued for her arrest and a shoplifting charge, he can't explain why she's still in custody.
The bench warrant is discretionary, he said, explaining that police don't have to make an arrest – and that shoplifting is such a minor offence, it would be shocking if that's why she was denied bail.
Also, police usually record video statements from victims like Mowatt, Young said, so that vulnerable people, known to recant or refuse to testify, don't have to face their alleged attacker in person.
If there is such a video it would be unusual for the Crown to detain Mowatt, just for her testimony, he said.
"But in fairness to police," Young added, video statements aren't accepted as evidence "100 per cent of the time," so authorities might be keeping the teen in custody as a precaution.
"But you could release her on bail and take her passport."
Sources said Mowatt's defence lawyer, Lydia Riva, and police argued against the teen's incarceration at the bail hearing.
Riva said she suggested strict bail conditions be imposed on the expectant mom, including house arrest.
The source said justice of the peace Lynette Stethem rejected the arguments because it was proposed that Mowatt stay with Harbin's family.
Harbin, who met Mowatt nine months ago at the corner of Yonge and Bloor Sts. when he asked her for directions to the bus terminal, is facing eight charges, including assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and three counts of breaching probation.
This week, Mowatt said Harbin merely tried to stop her from getting on a streetcar on Dec. 28, near Roncesvalles Ave. in the city's west end, the source said.
At the time, the teen called police upset and in genuine fear for her safety and the safety of her baby, the source said.
Mowatt, who said that she regretted her decision to call police almost immediately after doing so, purposely evaded authorities for more than a month, the source added.
She used aliases to move between shelters, the source said, and was defiant in several telephone conversations with police, telling officers that she wasn't going to pick up a summons to court or show up at trial.
The source also said that the primary objective of detectives is to put Harbin behind bars, "not the victim."
"She rebuffed," the source said.
"She told officers, `I will not come to court.' There was no recanting of the story. Her line was, `Whatever you do, I won't come to court.'"
Mowatt, who called police from a pay phone in December to report that her boyfriend, Christopher Harbin, 25, had assaulted her, was taken into custody April 1 and denied bail.
A judge issued a material warrant for her arrest on March 20 during Harbin's trial and police say they made several fruitless attempts to find Mowatt and serve her with a subpoena.
When Mowatt missed her court date in January – for allegedly stealing clothes from Designer Depot last year – the judge issued a bench warrant, the source said.
The bench warrant gives police the authority to arrest the teen and, say experts, leverage to persuade her to pick up a summons to court and testify at trial.
This case has caused a stir among politicians and women's advocates, who are grappling with how and why an alleged victim of domestic violence was detained in prison and the future implications of such drastic measures.
Criminal lawyer Alan Young said despite Mowatt's alleged refusal to appear in court, the warrants issued for her arrest and a shoplifting charge, he can't explain why she's still in custody.
The bench warrant is discretionary, he said, explaining that police don't have to make an arrest – and that shoplifting is such a minor offence, it would be shocking if that's why she was denied bail.
Also, police usually record video statements from victims like Mowatt, Young said, so that vulnerable people, known to recant or refuse to testify, don't have to face their alleged attacker in person.
If there is such a video it would be unusual for the Crown to detain Mowatt, just for her testimony, he said.
"But in fairness to police," Young added, video statements aren't accepted as evidence "100 per cent of the time," so authorities might be keeping the teen in custody as a precaution.
"But you could release her on bail and take her passport."
Sources said Mowatt's defence lawyer, Lydia Riva, and police argued against the teen's incarceration at the bail hearing.
Riva said she suggested strict bail conditions be imposed on the expectant mom, including house arrest.
The source said justice of the peace Lynette Stethem rejected the arguments because it was proposed that Mowatt stay with Harbin's family.
Harbin, who met Mowatt nine months ago at the corner of Yonge and Bloor Sts. when he asked her for directions to the bus terminal, is facing eight charges, including assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and three counts of breaching probation.
This week, Mowatt said Harbin merely tried to stop her from getting on a streetcar on Dec. 28, near Roncesvalles Ave. in the city's west end, the source said.
At the time, the teen called police upset and in genuine fear for her safety and the safety of her baby, the source said.
Mowatt, who said that she regretted her decision to call police almost immediately after doing so, purposely evaded authorities for more than a month, the source added.
She used aliases to move between shelters, the source said, and was defiant in several telephone conversations with police, telling officers that she wasn't going to pick up a summons to court or show up at trial.
The source also said that the primary objective of detectives is to put Harbin behind bars, "not the victim."
courtesy of http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/413498
5 comments:
Locking her up still doesn't mean she will testify. If I were her I'd be afraid to ever report a crime again in fear that they would lock me up. She's done no wrong yet she is locked up like a criminal.
I can't help but wonder how many 911 call responses were delayed because this woman was tying up the police over an incident she now claims never took place. How many other women were put at risk because Ms. Mowatt, in a fit of pique, decided she would use the police force as a means to getting back at her boyfriend?
The consequences are even more drastic if her original claims are true. I would suggest she look to Meritt B.C. to see what the future might hold if she doesn't get this guy off the streets.
I can understand her reluctance since our "hug-a-thug" justice system will probably let this guy off with a severe scolding, but it is much better to have him marked as a clear danger by the police than it is to have him not recorded as a convicted abuser. With all the publicity this case has gotten, I am certain the police and the various social agencies will take extra precautions to see to her welfare.
Her failure to follow through will only brand her as someone who cries wolf...and she would do well to remember that if you cry wolf too often, at some point the wolf will appear. And he will eat you.
Well, she did testify: she testified under oath that she lied to the police about the abuse occuring. We also find out - now - that she is not due to give birth until May. Can anyone tell me anything about this story that is a straight-forward fact? Did she lie about being abused or did she lie on the stand when she said the abuse did not occur?
With regard to the original post I believe the law was perfectly correct in what it did. The police and the legal system are not some kind of yo-yo that people get to play with as it suits them. It is a very serious matter to have someone charged with a crime and to have their liberty taken away or put in jeopardy.
The police and the courts will act to protect individuals from violence but the victims have a duty in law to turn up and provide evidence so that the charges may be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not showing up to testify because you don't feel like it will bring the consequences that Ms. Mowatt is experiencing. Was Mr. Harbin to remain in jail, perhaps indefinitely, until the witness decides to testify? Should he be held in custody when there is no proof being offered that he committed any crime?
In free and democratic societies we don't convict people like Mr. Harbin without trial: He is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The best advice one could give to women is to not lie about abuse. If it happened then say it happened: if not then say it did not. What seems to be happening here is that people are bashing a judge because of a person who can't tell the truth about what happened (or did not happen).
No-one, it seems, wants to talk about the fact that Mr. Harbin is incarcerated for something the witness now says - under oath - that he did not do. The logic seems to be that if a woman says she has been abused then she is telling the truth but if she says she has not been abused then she is lying: ergo the defendant is >always< guilty. Why do we bother with the trial? Just point the finger, have someone thrown in jail and run away.
In my opinion Ms. Noellee is totally responsible for her temporary incarceration. I would advise Mr. Harbin to get as far away from her as possible.
A final note:
If I were her I'd be afraid to ever report a crime again in fear that they would lock me up. She's done no wrong yet she is locked up like a criminal.
purple, your hyperbole reveals that you need to give this issue more thought. She is not locked up like a criminal: she is locked up like a material witness who was ignoring court directives to appear to offer testimony. If she was locked up like a criminal she would be facing charges under the Criminal Code. Once again, let's look at causation: She is not locked up because she reported a crime; no-one is locked up because they report a crime. She is locked up because she failed to appear to testify, in defiance of a court directive and the rule of law. Let's not forget that there is a person in custody (Mr. Harbin) because of Ms. Mowatt's complaint to the police.
She was clearly lying on the stand. Her explanations for her injuries at the time of complaint are on a par with "I ran into a doorknob".
No matter how bad it is, it is never easy for a domestic violence victim to leave or press charges, and frankly I think if they absolutely needed her testimony the case should have been dropped when she refused to testify. Maybe she'd have gained the courage to press charges next week, but now she's apparently vowed never to seek police help again.
Many people, especially of colour, do not trust the police already, and locking up a victim to force her to give evidence is just going to increase abuse victims' already high reluctance to seek police help. Especially when what many of them want when they call is the current beating to stop, not their partner put behind bars.
And "locked up like a criminal" is not hyperbole, she was in the same jail as criminals, just because she faced no criminal charges doesn't mean it wasn't nasty.
kelly-holden said:And "locked up like a criminal" is not hyperbole
Actually it is hyperbole if you are using the same dictionary as most other english-speaking people.
She is trying to assert that she is being treated as a criminal would be - but she is not. She is facing only a temporary restriction on her liberty so as to secure her testimony; a duty to the law that she was actively trying to evade. It's likely her room wasn't tossed, she has no need for lawyer really - though one was provided, she faces no charges and no restrictions when she is released, no parole, absolutely nothing else that a criminal accused or convict faces.
I would say that she is trying to use hyperbole to obtain sympathy. She probably said her baby was due in a few days for exactly the same reason. The idea being 'Isn't it bad that the baby will be born in prison?'
If Ms. Mowatt is being abused then the support groups advocating for her would do better in helping her dump the lying and hyperbole instead of helping her try to rationalize it.
kelly-holden said: No matter how bad it is, it is never easy for a domestic violence victim to leave or press charges, and frankly I think if they absolutely needed her testimony the case should have been dropped when she refused
and
Many people, especially of colour, do not trust the police already, and locking up a victim to force her to give evidence is just going to increase abuse victims' already high reluctance to seek police help. Especially when what many of them want when they call is the current beating to stop, not their partner put behind bars.
Assault is a violent crime and spousal abuse is a type of assault.
People who commit these crimes need to be locked up and must be required to undergo psychological screening and treatment. Having the police turn the offender loose only perpetuates the cycle because it is likely she will go back to him.
The law works the way it does because it is trying to provide the best response to the problem. My feeling is that the only way to improve the situation is to provide more psychological resources in prison for abusers. Locking them up will not solve the problem on its own.
Post a Comment