Sascha?Wil­son

Bail was yes­ter­day fixed at $150,000 for a Champs Fleurs man fac­ing charges of com­mit­ting a se­ries of of­fences against a woman in­clud­ing kid­nap­ping, rape and bug­gery. Seon Thomas, 35, ap­peared be­fore Se­nior Mag­is­trate Gillian David-Scot­land in the Ch­agua­nas court. He is ac­cused of car­ry­ing away the woman against her will and rob­bing her of a $6,100 wed­ding ring, two oth­er rings val­ued $500, a pair of ear­rings val­ued $500, a $600 hand­bag, a $1,000 Black­ber­ry phone, a $1,000 Nokia phone and $150 on Ju­ly 28 at Churchill-Roo­sevelt High­way, near Kay Don­na cin­e­ma. Thomas is al­so charged with rap­ing, bug­ger­ing and com­mit­ing acts of griev­ous sex­u­al as­sault against the woman at a place un­known on Ju­ly 29. He was charged by WPC?De­onar­ine.

Court pros­e­cu­tor Sgt Michael Jack­man sought an amend­ment to the charges to read that the ac­cused act­ed to­geth­er with oth­er peo­ple. The court grant­ed the ap­pli­ca­tion. Jack­man al­so com­plained to the mag­is­trate that Thomas' wife was "send­ing an­noy­ing and threat­en­ing words" to the al­leged vic­tim on Face­book. The mag­is­trate said that al­le­ga­tion should be in­ves­ti­gat­ed. Jack­man al­so ob­ject­ed to bail be­cause of the se­ri­ous­ness and preva­lence of the of­fence.

Ar­gu­ing that the pros­e­cu­tor's ground of ob­jec­tion could not pre­vent Thomas from get­ting bail, de­fence at­tor­ney Ian Brooks said his client was in the trans­port busi­ness, mar­ried and the fa­ther of three. He said Thomas had one pre­vi­ous con­vic­tion, for mar­i­jua­na pos­ses­sion, and no pend­ing mat­ters. He asked for rea­son­able bail with con­di­tions. In grant­i­ng bail the mag­is­trate warned Thomas to have no di­rect or in­di­rect con­tact with the vic­tim and stay 100 me­tres from her. Thomas' wife, who walked in while the mat­ter was in progress, was told by the mag­is­trate about the al­le­ga­tion that she was send­ing threat­en­ing com­mu­ni­ca­tions to the al­leged vic­tim. The wife de­nied the al­le­ga­tion. The mag­is­trate, how­ev­er, warned her not to have any com­mu­ni­ca­tion with any­one in the mat­ter. The mat­ter was ad­journed to Oc­to­ber 17.