The family of an elderly woman facing 14 days in prison over an unpaid Digicel bill allegedly run up by someone else is seeking now to have a judgment against her put aside.

Janice Beek, 73, of Smith’s, appeared yesterday in debt court before Senior Magistrate Juan Wolffe, accompanied by her son Jose.

Mr Beek argued that his mother, who is unable to speak for herself, had never run up the bill in the first place.

“What happened was she lost her phone, called in to report that her phone was lost, and her phone was never turned off,” he said.

Most of the costs run up on the lost phone were in the form of text messages, Mr Beek added, telling the court that his mother “only knows about five people” and has no idea how to text.

Mr Wolffe said the chance to argue that case had passed, and that the two would need to return to court to get the judgment put aside.

The court heard that a judgment was against her after Ms Beek failed to appear in court on October 20, 2011. Although she had appeared for an April, 2012 hearing, she repeatedly failed to show for other dates.

Mr Beek said his mother had been unable to show due to medical treatment.

“The reason she is standing before you is she is not able to comprehend this, even when she called in to report the missing phone,” he said. “I am only here now so that she does not have to be dragged back and forth.”

In the latest hearing, the phone company was said to be owed $818, but Mr Beek said Digicel’s representatives in recent days had been “firm” on being owed $1,000.

“I could find the money to pay for her, but I can’t allow my mother to pay something she has no reason to pay.”

Mr Wolffe said that on the face of it, Ms Beek was looking at serving 14 days in prison, adding: “The court is going to need some convincing.”

Added Mr Beek: “To be honest, when I didn’t hear anything about the matter for so long, I figured they had just let it go.”

“That rarely happens,” the magistrate responded.

Setting a mention date for tomorrow, Mr Wolffe advised the Beeks to return to court with the other party so that the issues could be raised in full.

“You’re saying to me she agreed to something she didn’t understand,” the magistrate added, advising them to bring the relevant call logs to court. “You need to explain to the judge. I’m assuming you will have the judgment against her set aside,” he said. “There has been a lot of water under the bridge so there’s a lot for you to do.”

Editor’s note:It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding on-going court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case.