Threats are not a good enough reason for a witness to refuse to give evidence, Acting Magistrate Mark Pettingill declared yesterday.

And the courts cannot be held hostage in their attempts to administer the course of justice, he added. However after a series of adjournments and accusations in Magistrates? Court over the last week, the Crown yesterday nullified firearms charges against a Hamilton parish man when the main witness in the case refused to testify at a preliminary inquiry ? because he had been threatened.

Kimwande D. Walker faced three charges of possessing a firearm, having a firearm in a public place, and intending to use that firearm to endanger the life of Michael Easton. The preliminary inquiry was held this week to see if there was enough evidence to hold a Supreme Court trial. However when Mr. Easton was called to give evidence on Monday, he refused to answer questions put to him by Crown counsel Graveney Bannister, stating only: ?No comment?.

As Mr. Easton was the complainant in the case and was said to have made either four or five statements to Police (the numbers varied according to lawyers), as well having taken part in an identification parade, Mr. Bannister asked for an adjournment.

Mr. Pettingill adjourned for the evening, ordering Mr. Bannister, Mr. Walker?s lawyers Craig Attridge and Charles Richardson, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Easton to return the next morning.

The next morning Mr. Easton appeared with his own legal counsel, Larry Scott. He again refused to give testimony, giving no reasons but simply saying he did not want any part in the proceedings.

Calling himself ?an unhappy acting magistrate?, Mr. Pettingill charged Mr. Easton with contempt of court and promptly shut him in jail for two days.

?The message can go out, there is too much of this with witnesses coming in and jerking the court around,? he said. ?Witnesses who make statements and then don?t give evidence should be open to prosecution because the rights of the defendant have been infringed upon.?

Under the law, Mr. Pettingill could have left Mr. Easton in jail for seven days.

However yesterday morning all four lawyers, the defendant, and the complainant appeared in court once more to deal firstly with the contempt of court charge, and secondly to continue with the PI.

Despite several attempts from Mr. Bannister and Mr. Scott to have arguments on the contempt of court issue heard in chambers and without the input of Mr. Attridge or Mr. Richardson, Mr. Pettingill stood firm. ?I am not here to protect witnesses,? he said. ?That?s the role of the Police. It is not for me to play cloak-and-dagger... We can?t start going behind closed doors.?

Instead, he ordered Mr. Easton be recalled and the PI continued. When, under oath, Mr. Easton again answered questions from Mr. Bannister with ?No comment?, Mr. Pettingill warned he could be sent back to jail. ??No comment? ain?t gonna cut it.?

?I don?t want to give evidence in this matter because I have been threatened,? Mr. Easton finally volunteered. Mr. Pettingill agreed that was a very serious matter, and he said meant no disrespect with what he was about to say to the lawyers: ?So what? Is a threat to a witness a lawful excuse? As far as I?m concerned that is not uncommon... If the courts were held hostage to that, we?d never get anything done. That does not strike me as being good enough.?

Though Mr. Attridge pointed out threats could constitute a defence of duress against the contempt of court charge, Mr. Pettingill observed that he himself ? a prominent defence lawyer ? received threats all the time. ?They don?t put me under duress.?

The witness, he added, had not complained of being under duress, but had only said he had been threatened.

Though Mr. Bannister asked again for an adjournment to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the file, Mr. Pettingill was having none of it. ?This is happening, right now,? he said.

Finally, Mr. Bannister nullified the charges against Mr. Walker ? effectively letting both Mr. Walker and Mr. Easton off the hook.

Though he stood by the decisions he had made, Mr. Pettingill remained unhappy, saying: ?The court is greatly perturbed by what has transpired in this PI.?

Charges may still be brought against Mr. Walker in the future.