As the trial of four men accused of various weapons offences in relation to the violent skirmish at Wellington Oval in April continued in Magistrates? Court on Friday, the Crown asked that a witness be shielded by a screen while testifying for reasons of safety.

Little testimony was heard on Friday as most of the day was eaten up by legal arguments surrounding the issue of the screen.

Crown counsel Shade Subair asked that the witness in question be allowed to give evidence behind a screen, not have his name read aloud in court or used in the media, and, be allowed to enter the courtroom anonymously.

Defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher told the court the Crown had revealed the name of the witness to her and that her client, Ki-Jah Russell Butterfield, said he did not know the man.

Ms Christopher said: ?Who are we shielding this witness from and why?

?It can?t be these prison officers or the media. So what is the purpose of this exercise??

Magistrate William Francis asked the Crown: ?The public has been banned from the courtroom except for Police, Prison officers, and the media ? is there still a need for a screen??

Ms Subair said that by Ms Christopher telling one of the defendants the name of the witness, who wished to be anonymous, the damage was already done.

However, she said his face can still be protected and the screen would allow the witness to give evidence without intimidation.

She then launched into the evidence the witness is expected to testify to, but Ms Christopher objected to Ms Subair reading the witness?s statement during her application to keep him anonymous.

?She is reading the witness statement ? why don?t they just read all the witness statements?? Ms Christopher asked.

Arguing against the screen, Ms Christopher?s said she would be ?utterly crippled? in cross examination if the Crown?s requests were granted.

She said her client will not be able to give her instructions on the witness if he cannot see him to possibly jog his memory as to whether or not the witness was present during the violent outbreak.

?I haven?t got a clue how I am going to cross examine this guy,? she said.

?It is not enough for the Crown to float to the court that the witness is afraid or his mother is afraid.

?You remember Anderson (a witness who previously refused to testify) was afraid but who was he afraid of?? Ms Christopher asked.

Mr. Francis gave Mr. Anderson time to consult with a lawyer last week while the Crown decides whether to compel him to give evidence.

Leo Mills, who represents Wolde Trott and Kavon Earlstone Smith, also objected to the use of the screen.

?The use of a screen is the latest in a series of bizarre twists and turns in this case,? he said.

He added that he hopes his clients? interests will not be compromised if the court goes ahead with the Crown?s application.

Det. Con. Garic Swainson finished his testimony on Friday which consisted of analysing photographs taken of the fighting.

Trott, 21, of Paget and Smith, 25, of Southampton are both charged with possession of an offensive weapon and going armed to a public place in a manner to cause terror.

Trott and Smith, who have been diligently taking notes for the past few days while in the dock, originally pleaded guilty to the charges but have since changed their plea to not guilty.

Jamie Ford, 23, of Warwick, is charged with possession of an offensive weapon, going to a public place in a manner to cause terror, and assaulting Antoine Anderson. He is represented by Mark Pettingill and denies the charges.

Butterfield, 21, of Paget, is charged with possession of an offensive weapon and going to a public place in a manner to cause terror but denies the charges.

Mr. Francis adjourned the trial, which has concluded its sixth day, until today when he will make a ruling on whether or not a witness can testify anonymously.