Suspended Police Constable Robert Butterfield narrowly escaped handcuffs yesterday as a magistrate issued a warrant for his arrest — then rescinded the order.

However, Butterfield, on trial for stalking the mother of his young daughter, could not avoid a scolding.

When the proceeding was scheduled to resume yesterday after a ten-minute recess the defendant was absent. Magistrate Juan Wolffe sent a Police Sergeant out to find Butterfield, who is also a Police officer but under suspension with two-thirds of his salary.

The sergeant reported back to defence attorney Edward King: “Your client said, ‘Don’t tell me what to do’.”

The Magistrate immediately issued the arrest warrant.

When the defendant walked into court less than two minutes later Mr. Wolffe asked him if he knew there was a warrant issued for his arrest.

He replied: “I’m not surprised.”

That began an exchange which ended in an admonishment from the court: “I’m the wrong person for you to think you can disrespect — disrespect me or this bench,” said Mr. Wolffe.

“When you need to be in this court, you appear in this court. May I remind you, you’re under bail.”

Butterfield explained: “I had to get my composure. I went outside to cool my head.”

He also said he was talking to his Chief Inspector when the Sergeant tried to call him inside. Butterfield, dressed in a green suit, seemed agitated at times.

As the Magistrate was speaking he took off his suit jacket, undid his tie, and rolled up his shirt sleeves.

The warrant was ultimately rescinded and the defendant’s bail was upheld, but the trial was abruptly adjourned until this morning at the request of the Crown.

It was supposed to be day two in a trial that led off with dramatic testimony. On Tuesday the mother of Butterfield’s 19-month-old daughter accused him of stalking her, forcing her into sex, and verbally abusing her.

The defence maintains the sex was consensual and that the alleged stalking was mostly coincidental because the pair were practically neighbours in St. David’s.

The case restarted yesterday for a few seconds when Crown counsel Paula Tyndale requested a ten-minute recess as the first order of business.

She said she had to further investigate something directly related to the case she was prosecuting. She was granted the time, but did not explain what she had to look into.

According to the accuser, Ms Tyndale had to probe the circumstances of a family court order issued this week which allegedly allowed the defendant new access to the couple’s toddler.

The order is curious because the complainant, the child’s mother, says she wasn’t there when it was granted.

A telephone inquiry to Family Court yesterday revealed it is typical that both parents are present before such cases are even heard.

And in the rare occasions when one parent is absent, a letter from that person is typically required to explain to the court why he or she isn’t there.

The Family Court representative had no direct knowledge of the Butterfield case.

The accuser further alleges to The Royal Gazette that during the court lunch break on Tuesday, Butterfield went and picked up his daughter from a babysitter without the child’s mother being made aware.

The little girl was apparently returned to her mother on Tuesday after the trial adjourned, but in court yesterday the complainant could be heard saying: “I have no idea where my child is. Where is my child?”

By the time all of this was settled, the Magistrate agreed it was best to put things off until the next day.

When the trial resumes the complainant is expected back on the stand under cross examination from defence attorney Edward King.

Suspended Policeman scolded after late court appearance