A Santa Cruz resident was spared jail on Friday after he was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching a High Court order.
Justice Frank Seepersad did not send Lennox Adolphus Joseph to jail because he had repaired a road he had dug up.
Instead, Joseph was ordered to pay $25,000 in costs.
Seepersad gave the ruling in the Hall of Justice, Port-of-Spain, following a site visit at Hill Crest View, La Canoa Road, Lower Santa Cruz, where Joseph had dug up the road last month in breach of the judge’s order.
The judge on May 2, 2016, ruled in favour of residents’ who claimed that the road was their right of way. The land is owned by Joseph who had argued that the residents’ had alternative access to their property and their passage over his property was not justified.
Seepersad, however, granted an injunction restraining Joseph from in any way blocking and/or hindering the use of the residents’ right of way.
However, last week residents’ Pamela Davidson, Adrian John, Trevor Rambally, Gillian Bleasdell-Alexander returned to the court where they filed a contempt application after Joseph dug up the road.
Rambally said Joseph, with the assistance of other men and equipment of the San Juan/Laventille Regional Corporation, wilfully, deliberately and maliciously dug up the road and cut a ditch across the road on February 4, making it impassible to a motor vehicle.
A report was made at the San Juan Police Station. The judge ordered Joseph to immediately refill the area which he had dug, to allow single lane traffic.
After visiting the site yesterday, the judge returned to the Hall of Justice where he gave his ruling.
“Compliance with court orders is mandatory,” said the judge who noted that the rule of law is a pillar in a democratic society and has to be jealously guarded.
Describing Joseph’s action as unlawful, the judge said, “Lawlessness and selfishness are far too prevalent and will not be condoned.”
In discharging its duty to uphold the constitution and the law, he said the court must act without fear or favour, must exercise moral conscience, operate with an acute sense of fairness and it’s decisions have to be devoid of bias. Although the defendant was in contempt of court, he said the breach has been remedied.
“Cognizant that the parties are neighbours and they have to coexist, the court is of the view that in the circumstances incarceration would serve no useful purpose, but the defendant must pay costs assessed by the court in the sum of $25,000,” the judge said.