Court rules Bernard Wiltshire detention lawful

Bernard Wiltshire
Bernard Wiltshire sued the state for unlawful detention

A court ruled on Tuesday that the detention of former attorney general, Bernard Wiltshire, in 2011 was lawful.

Wiltshire was detained in an alleged passport scam and was subsequently released without being charged.

He then sued the state and the police on the basis of false imprisonment and arrest.

But Justice Errol Thomas ruled that based on the circumstances, the police were not wrong in detaining Wiltshire.

Thomas pointed out that as an experienced attorney Wiltshire should have exercised  restraint.

He now has to pay court cost of $7,000.

Wiltshire was arrested in June 2011 for his alleged involvement in what police described as an alleged passport scam.

He was released about ten hours later without being charged.

He subsequently told DNO that he had been treated unjustly and very “unfairly” and his lawsuit was aimed at preventing such acts by the police, who he suggested, abused their power.

He said the police focused on him signing one passport form for an individual, while other lawyers are said to have signed over 40 such forms for suspects in the alleged scam, but had not been targeted.

Wiltshire was arrested again on January 30, 2012 for, according to the police, “conspiring with persons unknown to sell a Dominican passport”.

The outspoken attorney told DNO on the day of the arrest that the charge was bogus and was being imposed by a corrupt regime.

He said he was informed by one police officer that the person with whom he is alleged to have conspired, admitted to the police that he doesn’t even know Bernard Wiltshire.

Disclaimer: The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com/Duravision Inc. All comments are approved by DominicaNewsOnline.com before they are posted. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • violate or infringe the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or include personal attacks
  • are abusive, profane or offensive
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are excessively long and off-message

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

53 Comments

  1. Anonymous
    December 12, 2013

    If a drug dealer, in making his escape, dumps his goods on your property and it is discovered by the police before you find it and notify them you are responsible for the crime.

    If you are in a public/Business place and drugs are found there, you and everyone else will be arrested and charged even if the owner admit to owning the drugs (this actually happened in St. Joseph).

    We need to have reasonable laws. The Judge had to deal with an unreasonable Law. He did his job. Deal with your Parliamentary Representative because it is Parliament who creates Laws and they alone can change Laws.

    • Justice and Truth
      December 13, 2013

      In this case, people should barricade their property so that no one throws them on their property; unless they throw them over which they may not bother to do.

  2. SMDH
    December 12, 2013

    Those people never learn…. :-P Good job Pearl

  3. yep
    December 12, 2013

    well look it.

  4. budman
    December 12, 2013

    Francisco Dodds, it was only a matter of time before you made an absolute fool of yourself. you have always been one of those persons who fancies himself an expert in all things. This is the type of undressing that can happen to pseudo intellectuals such as yourself. use this as a teachable moment and come back renewed.

    • Francisco Telemaque
      December 12, 2013

      Okay, let us assume I agree with all your venom you spewed; I am still looking for the reason in the episode of your tantrum why you believe I am pseudo. You have not pointed out one single thing I said which caused me to have made myself a fool.

      If you believe I am a pseudo (false) or better yet pseudepigraphy intellectual, whoever you are, I challenge you to pick any subject of your choice, from kindergarten arithmetic, to advance mathematics such algebra, trigonometry, calculus geometry, physics, chemistry, statistics, any level of mathematics, and let us test each other right here on DNO, or in another forum I can invite you into to prove the better man.

      However, if you are in my class educationally, answer this simple question.

      What level and type of mathematical calculation is required in out of space in order to navigate going to places such as Mars, and the Moon, and returning to earth?

      If you can answer this simple question, I will know you are as intelligent as I am, if you do not know, then you will realize you are a nothing, a nobody, who is beneath me educationally, and does not worth my time.

      The other sciences I will allow you to pick any of your choice, and debate me; let us work some problems (mathematical) problems out so that we can prove between you, and me which of us is false!

      Whoever you are I can eat you up; chew you up in the morning for breakfast, and disgorge (vomit) you out at dinner time, draw circles around you, step over you, and walk out of the circle leaving you mesmerized, and delusional!

      You are an idiot!

      My entire opinion is based on two simple words spoken by Errol, which does not make sense, and all of you so called smart people talking so much crap ready to fight me when the concept of what I conveyed has evaded you all, except one person.

      Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque

  5. Anonymous
    December 12, 2013

    Why are you all attacking one another? Can’t you make a valid contribution to the topic and let it be a learning process. Come on man!

  6. Mary Black
    December 12, 2013

    For his role in society he surely does not give the right advice. What goes round comes round.

  7. Dominican By Birth
    December 12, 2013

    This court should be REVAMP someone should NEVER sleep in the cell if they are not charged, while investigations are being done the person should be given dates and time to come in for interviews, i know of innocent people that have stayed in the cell for days just to be let off and not charged (this unfortunate experience damaged a senior neighbor of mine mentally) this court is assisting the police to trample on people’s right and that’s not fair at all, SHAME ON THE COURT

  8. 4CARS
    December 11, 2013

    We are an “Independent” nation, but the British Law still stands. But if we are talking about “passport scam,” there aught to be many more heads on the platter!!! don’t you think?

  9. Francisco Telemaque
    December 11, 2013

    The English language is the most difficult language to speak, and interpret, in most case grammatically: I am not aware that there are perhaps no linguistics major in our country, I do not know of any

    However if there is one among us who majored in linguistics, I would like that student of linguistics to explain to all the people who are babbling including Gary, Which word in this paragraph below in the quotation which remotely define anything Errol stated there to mean resting arrest.

    “Thomas pointed out that as an experienced attorney Wiltshire should have exercised restraint.”

    I mean they say I am an idiot, and I will not hesitate probably admit that I am; however, a fool, I am not and if is one thing I am certain of is that I know how to read.

    So, Gary: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah; this one is on you!

    In any event idiot I, me, the Wesley idiot will give a few meanning to the word restraint; quote me!

    .a control over the expression of one’s emotions or thoughts
    . a devise that restricts movement
    .the state of being restrained
    We remember I defined it earlier as a restraining force or influence, there are other meanings also that is why the English language is so difficult to be spoken properly, my point here is I defy any of my critics to define restraint to mean resting arrest.

    Some of us Dominicans are just too darn smart for idiots like me.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

    Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque

  10. Anthony Ismael
    December 11, 2013

    Meanwhile, they are unable to solve so many murders on the island.
    What happened to the Monga Freeman/Omarie Smalls case?
    I am still waiting for justice on that case.

  11. unknown
    December 11, 2013

    So everyone that is held by the police for questioning should sue the Government? Are you serious Mr. Wiltshire! Why would you give yourself such an embarrassment? The police has every right to detain suspects for 24-72hrs without charging them-how else do you expect them to carry out their investigations. Your rights were not abused-you were just too proud!

    • Justice and Truth
      December 13, 2013

      As I have noted and stated, the Dominican Law is different. The Law should be revamped and the police re-trained and/or upgrade their training.
      If the police in Canada does that, people have a right to sue them. Under certain circumstances, it has occurred. People in these progressive countries sue left and right.
      I am not referring to a murderer or other types of criminals. Even those sue the police.
      Some police have broken into people’s homes even while they are asleep and arrested them and took them to the police station in their night clothes as in the case of men, in their pyjamas. They had the wrong house and wrong people. How embarrassing for them. They sue the police alright and for an exorbitant sum of money and eventually won.
      If they are wrongfully accused and held for some hours without being charged, why should they not sue the police?

  12. What a fool
    December 11, 2013

    Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque

    • ?????????????
      December 11, 2013

      Your me says a lot about you. Well go to night school nah. SOT!

      • Joe
        December 12, 2013

        @??????? your name says alot about you too, read this , what you replied to is simple…

        Name: What a Fool
        Message:Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque

        Can you now read in between the lines???????

        Guess not!!!!!

  13. Helas!
    December 11, 2013

    It is not evidence to say that others signed up to forty passport forms.

    the act of signing without due knowledge was done and so Bernard should have left all alone.

  14. December 11, 2013

    Resisting arrest.
    to make a stand or make efforts in opposition; act in opposition; offer resistance.

  15. blind bat
    December 11, 2013

    Mr Doods let me commence by saying to you that you need to acquaint yourself with the criminal procedure rules and investigative principles in Dominica also the Judges Rules which governs the actions of the police when investigating an alleged criminal offence. The Police can detain you for up to 72 hours when they have sufficient reason to suspect you for being involved or having committed or conspired to commit a criminal offence. Within that time the police MUST either prefer a charge against you or release you from custody. The could not have violated Mr Wiltshire’s rights when they did not do any act contrary to the Law that directs their actions. I think you and others really need to inform yourselves on the circumstances of a matter before you “proudly” make your comments as if you know what you speak about. Before you respond to this comment google Judges Rules and read a little. Peace

    • "O" STRESS"
      December 11, 2013

      Could not have said it better. I call them,” Bush lawyers and playing Lawyers with out going to law school. Typical Dominicans. Computer turn them into experts. Smh.

    • Black Nobility
      December 12, 2013

      This in my opinion is a violation of civil rights, but i always forget that i’m living in Dom-iNica where the rule of law is sometimes abuse from the top to the bottom. For the least they could have ordered him to give up his travel documents. If this continues to be the rule it will tempt other officers to detain out of spite when there are no clear evidence to support the detention. And don’t tell me that officers dont profile because we did it all the time.

  16. Marlpardee
    December 11, 2013

    That is really nonsense.They arrest the man wrongfully, let him go, then they want him to pay court fee. Don’t worry sir, leave them for god to handle. Where u hear a person who was arrested by ” mistake” have to pay court fee? U hear about apology and compensation to the innocent. Is only dominica that lacking justice. And that fee well high..

    • Are you Serious
      December 11, 2013

      Obviously you’re a student from the Q95 and Lennox Linton’s Kangaroo Law School. Why, why on earth are you all so quick to comment on issues you have no knowledge of.

      You all guys never ever ceases to amaze. We all know that you have a computer and you have access to DNO, but that doesn’t mean you must make a complete fool of yourself. Please exercise restrain when dealing with issues you’re not qualify to comment on.

      • ?????????????
        December 11, 2013

        @ Are You Serious I LOVE LENNOX, for the simple reason that he gives you diarrhoea. His name is a household name in your long and corrupt tongue.YOU HAVE TO LEARN THAT he is the incoming PM.

    • BEB
      December 11, 2013

      Who ever mentioned that the man was wrongfully arrested, u making up that story

  17. Malgraysa
    December 11, 2013

    A man is detained without charge for two days and has to pay costs of $7,000 for contesting that? I must be dim but I fail to comprehend how such a thing can be legal. You mean the police can lock me up without charge? When Mr. Skerrit said said we are too free he was not joking, was he? Invest in an Easy Door for easy exit in future Mr. Wilthsire.

  18. independent thinker
    December 11, 2013

    Just curious as to who the attorneys on both sides were

    • knowledge
      December 11, 2013

      Ms. Pearl Williams represented the State and Dr. William Riviere represented Mr. Wilshire.

  19. Francisco Telemaque
    December 11, 2013

    ‘But Justice Errol Thomas ruled that based on the circumstances the police were not wrong in detaining Wiltshire.'(Errol Thomas).

    I am not the smartest Dominican alive, nor do I know everything about all things, however, any idiot such as I who read Errol comments, which is his ruling actually, can only determine the nonsense he spoke as in the quote above is bogus; prejudicial, and does not coincide with any legal precedence!

    “Based on what circumstances” is this man talking about, his personal, and political demagoguery has surfaced in the nonsense he spoke, and is very plain for all to see; his ruling is not based on any law, nonetheless it is politically motivated.

    “Thomas pointed that as an experienced attorney Wiltshire should have experienced restraint.”

    The nonsense that so called judge, or magistrate speaks is nothing more than a joke, his place on a judicial bench belongs in a kangaroo court. The fact that Wiltshire was not charge with a crime his rights was indeed violated, especially if he was held in custody for more than forty-eight (48) hours. If he was held for one minute past forty-eight house without being charged with some crime, his constitutional rights was violated by the police, and ultimately the government of the State.

    What type of restraint should the man experienced?

    Restraint denotes: “an act of restraining, or the state of being restrained; an restraining force or influence.”

    I do not believe the word can be defined in any other way that will give it a different meaning even in some legal term. Experienced on the other simple means “skillful or wise,” so unless such terms are used in a way that can only be defined in legal terms that someone not trained in law is familiar with, this man Thomas has made a joke of himself.

    If I was Wiltshire, I would not pay the courts cost, and I would appeal Thomas ruling based on his prejudices because such ruling is indeed prejudicial. What does the skill, and wisdom of an individual has to do with the violation of their rights by the police?

    If the police is fishing for evidence to solve a crime, they should not simply decide to arrest people without solid evidence linking them to the crime they are investigating!

    Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque

    • Me too
      December 11, 2013

      Ah ben Francisco, ou ni temps! Who you really think sits and reads through your epistles?

      • Justice and Truth
        December 11, 2013

        I have previously stated on this Website, reading is an education in itself. You would do well to read his writing. You may learn something from it.
        Telemaque’s writing is an intelligent and well-thought out one which some of you may not agree with. Nevertheless, it is his opinion which he has a right to. No two minds are alike. There are times I disagree with him and vice versa. However, we are free to agree and disagree amicably without insulting the writer. This is adult maturity.
        Do not criticize others for their long writing. It is inconsiderate of you. If you do not wish to read it, so be it. You reserve that right. Something you do not know or ever considered. When some of us put our fingers to the keyboard, we have no idea how long the writing will be as words flow from the mind. It takes a broadminded person to know this.
        I always say to specifically those whom I know and jokingly, I know what I will write about but only God knows how long the writing will be as words flow from my mind. Therefore, please give Telemaque that privilege and cease your criticism.
        Some people do not write long comments because there are times they have nothing constructive to contribute which is why they may write only “one-liners or a few.” All the same it is their prerogative which we must respect.
        Interestingly, sometime ago I heard on TV, intelligent/educated people have more to say; likewise have more to write about. They also observe what some do not. This is food for thought.

      • Justice and Truth
        December 11, 2013

        As an afterthought, do you know the saying: “Take time to do good?” It is worth practicing.

      • WS
        December 12, 2013

        I did read and agree with him. Not because someone say i did this “crime” (without any evidence) Dominica police believe they can arrest you, lock you up and release you without any charge. This is wrong, when you are in the cell you are not comfortable, no benches to sit on, no beds during the night (you either sleep on the cold ground or on cardboard), littered with garbage, roaches running all over the floor/ you while you sleep, Inmates uses the toilet and you have to beg the officers to flush toilet from outside (whenever they ready)

        This is unfair to any human being and do hope you reach there one day to see what the man went through why he is complaining.

    • concern citizen
      December 11, 2013

      seems like you are an expert on all topics here on DNO SMH.

      • Justice and Truth
        December 11, 2013

        He is intelligent enough to comment on this topic and provide his opinion.

    • December 11, 2013

      Resisting arrest.
      to make a stand or make efforts in opposition; act in opposition; offer resistance.

    • Not Voting UWP Again
      December 11, 2013

      Mr Telemaque! My limited knowledge of the law and the Judges Rule under which the Commonwealth countries to include Dominica operates, states,” When a police officer it trying to determine whether or not a crime has been committed he (the police officer)is entitled to question anyone, whether suspected or nor, as long as the person question has not been charged or informed that he may be charge for the crime for which he is being questioned”.

      Note also that the Constitution allows for a suspect to be detained for a period of not more than 72hours before being charged, after 72 hours he must either be charged or released. Being held for 10 hours is within the Constitution and it is for that reason that the judge stated “he should have exercise restrain”.

      In my opinion Mr. Wilshire was just playing to his audience at DNO and now has $7,000.00 cost to pay.

      Mr. Wiltshire must have known better as a former Attorney General. So Mr. Telemaque you’re dead wrong.

      • Justice and Truth
        December 11, 2013

        Consider, would there not be times that the officers could exceed their position and responsibility?

      • Francisco Telemaque
        December 11, 2013

        In a investigation, the police must have reason for the arrest, you do not go on an fishing expedition and simply pull people in with the hope they are involved into something; and will indiscriminate themselves allowing you to arrest them.

        And to the person who talked about resisting arrest, I do not think Wiltshire resisted arrest by any means, as a matter of fact, I doubt Errol’s remark has anything to do with the resisting of arrest, we must keep in mind that Wiltshire was discharged without been charged of a crime or any infraction.

        If he rested arrest, at least the police would have charged him with resisting, or obstruction of their duty. My problem with Errol Thomas is the terminology he chose in his ruling, which to me has nothing to with any legal precedence, however I find to be political.

        I submit to you again there is nothing he said which I read, that has anything relating to a point of law, hence I would only expect such from a Wesley Bush Lawyer, or something said in a Kangaroo Court!

        I ask; why as Errol contend, would someone as wise; “experienced” in law as Wiltshire resist arrest, knowing that he is not guilty of an offence.

        Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque

    • Gary
      December 11, 2013

      Why are you so arrogant.Have you forgotten the word Think.Do you need to make a fool out of your self.When Justice Errol Thomas ruled that based on the circumstances the police were not wrong in detaining Wiltshire.You were not in the court to hear what the circumstance or evidence The Police had to arrest Mr.Wiltshire and so it was that evidence presented in Court that lead Justice Errol Thomas to make such decision.

      How can you make a foolish statement saying that Mr.Wiltshire rights was violated,were you there when Mr.Wiltshire was arrested,were you in the cell at the time he was being questioned. What made you suggest Mr.Wiltshire was in Police custody longer than 48hrs, where was that mentioned in the News article.If you do not understand something why come up with nonsensical jargon.When Judge Errol Thomas said quote “that as an experienced attorney Wiltshire should have exercised restraint.” restraint simply means the act of holding back,suggesting that Mr.Wiltshire should exercise restraint over his emotions while being arrested by The Police.

      Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque you always seem to bewilder me with you comments.I will leave you with you favorite line haa haaaaa.

      • Justice and Truth
        December 11, 2013

        Gary, it has been noted that Dominica has some strange Laws which are foreign to us who reside abroad. The Laws are somewhat different where we reside. Therefore, try to comprehend that.
        As for me, I am not commenting on this case for I do not comprehend this D/ca Law that Bernard Wiltshire was detained for 72 hours and then released without being charged. He sued the Police and now has to pay Court costs in the amount of $7,200. I ask myself, is this really fair to him?
        D/ca appears to have a two-tier Law and favoritism Court system. We could call it a Kangaroo Court.
        Taking someone’s life is a serious matter and warrants life imprisonment with no parole. It appears under the D/can Law what is good for one is not good for another.
        For instance, this year, if I recall one morning a Laudat man murdered another. He appeared in Court and was immediately granted bail. Bet the case is not yet called and he is enjoying his life while his victim’s body is six feet deep and rotting in the grave. His murderer sent him, prematurely to his eternal judgment sooner than God planned, I am certain. This murderer which is what he is for taking a life was not even detained.
        There are also instances where bail was granted and the majority of D/cans were against them.
        Also recently, a man was caught and was not yet charged. As it was reported, he appeared to be a perpetrator. Therefore, what type of Court System, jurisdiction is this?
        Therefore, go easy on Telemaque and myself as well. God’s peace be with you and others who criticize us for providing our comments and responding on this matter.

    • BEB
      December 11, 2013

      What kind of Kangaroo Law School did Francisco Dods Telemaque went to. It appears that he knows it all when in fact he knows nothing, quick to stay in front of his computer writing lengthy comments without thinking. One advise to u, THINK CAREFULLY, before making any comments, rather than making an a*** of urself

    • ME and ME
      December 11, 2013

      Francisco, you are the best. You don’t only call yourself an idiot but you bevave like one and you have convinced yourself that you are one. It’s like when you say something so many times, you really believe it. One piece of advice to you, educate yourself on a topic before commenting.

    • Just Me
      December 12, 2013

      FEDT sometimes you should just STFU.

    • December 12, 2013

      Francisco Telemaque December 11, 2013 “Thomas pointed that as an experienced attorney Wiltshire should have experienced restraint.”

      The above is the quote of Francisco, followed by his question: “What type of restraint should the man experienced? Along with the rest of his bla bla bla bla; he even tried to tell us was restraint means.

      But here is what the news article said: “Thomas pointed out that as an experienced attorney Wiltshire should have “exercised” restraint”.

      They rest of you who commented against Telemaque may not have seen how he made himself the greatest fool of DNO one more time; but it never pass me by.

      Gary you don’t like me and I don’t think like you either, but you are right–Telemaque needs to stop presenting himself as the Lord of Lords–because he is no lord at all; not even the lord of the idiots of this world; he belong in the “twilight zone” world of his own–my goodness gracious me!

      • December 12, 2013

        that should read: he even tried to tell us “what” restraint means

      • Gary
        December 13, 2013

        Why are you saying I do not like you.You have done nothing to me to dislike you.Having different opinions does not cause me to dislike a person,of course you are a good person, I just do not agree with your comments just like you do not agree with mind either. I never hate people, hate poisons.

        Merry Christmas

      • December 14, 2013

        Gary thanks for the Christmas wish! The same to you.

        Also, I don’t totally disagree with the things which you write–I give you thumbs up quite often.

        It is only when you comments against me, that I think you do not like me–as a human being my mind cannot think differently. Thanks for saying that I am a “good” person

    • December 12, 2013

      Do you think people take their time to read your long tasteless speeches? you fooling yourself.

    • octo
      December 12, 2013

      Mr. Dodds, in school, back in those days, we learnt proverbs and their meaning. Your comments are always lengthy and you seem to think that you are an expert on every topic, Mr. Know-it-all.
      This reminds me of the proverb: “Empty barrels make the most noise.”

    • spoken word
      December 12, 2013

      I am bewildered at some of the comments on here in support of Mr. Wiltshire frivoulous claim…i am also bewildered that though Mr. Dodds claim not to know much about the law..went on to portray a keeper of the law…Mr. Dodds the judgment stated that the police acted lawfully when they arrested Mr. Wiltshire..because they had reasonable cause to suspect that an offense had been committed by Mr. WWiltshire it went on further to detail the reason..it also stated that for someone who had been an attorney General and is 30 years in the business (as an attorney) should have “execise restraint before recommended Part 9 of a passport form when he had no recollection of the person for whom he recommended the form..Mr. Telemaque what you should have done before coming here and ranting like a lunatic about stuff u clearly no nothing about..waited for the judgment to be published in the Gazette, read it , then come and give a more informed comment

Post a Reply to octo Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available