2 weeks ago
7
Heated legal arguments unfolded in the High Court today as prosecutors and defense attorneys clashed over whether the rape trial of attorney Orson “OJ” Elrington should be heard in open court or behind closed doors. The trial was scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. before Justice Nigel Pilgrim but was immediately delayed after the defense formally applied for the matter to be heard publicly. The case is currently set to be tried by judge alone. Forty-three-year-old Elrington is charged with an alleged rape said to have occurred in Belize City on January twelfth, 2023. He remains out on bail of eight thousand dollars with conditions including weekly sign-in at Belama Police Station and no contact within twenty-five feet of the virtual complainant. Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryl-Lynn Vidal argued strongly that the proceedings should remain in camera, telling the court she had not sought special measures under the Witness Protection Act earlier because there had been no objection during case management to the closed-court approach. The DPP submitted that hearing the matter publicly would prejudice the interests of justice, stressing that the virtual complainant and other witnesses would have to testify about deeply personal events. According to the Crown, public proceedings could make the complainant less willing to testify, negatively affect the quality of the evidence, and intrude on her private life. The DPP characterized the complainant as a vulnerable witness and maintained there is no danger to the public if the trial proceeds in camera. In written submissions, the Crown also argued the Constitution gives the trial judge discretion to exclude the public where necessary to protect the private lives of witnesses and the integrity of the evidence. Leading the defense response, attorney Alifah Elrington told the court the case is not ordinary, noting that the defendant is both a public and political figure. She argued that alternative protective measures could be used instead of closing the courtroom, including virtual testimony, controlled courtroom access, or anonymity orders. The defense further maintained that given the seriousness of the allegation, and the intense media scrutiny already faced by Elrington, the public should have access to the proceedings. In their written filing, the defense emphasized the strong constitutional presumption in favour of open justice and argued the circumstances do not justify excluding the public. The DPP countered that the defense position would effectively expose the complainant in the same way they claim the accused has been exposed, and she insisted that for prosecutorial purposes Elrington remains a “regular defendant.” Justice Pilgrim has now directed the DPP to file, by midday February 26, a statement from the virtual complainant outlining her views and why the court should exercise its discretion to provide constitutional protections. Oral arguments will be heard two hours later, and the judge is expected to deliver his ruling on Friday, February 27 at 9:00 a.m. Senior attorney Dickie Bradley had previously stated in a June second, 2025 interview that he stands by Elrington and that the Association of Defense Attorneys also supports him.
Richard “Dickie” Bradley, Attorney: “Where you are is that there is an allegation , it’s a very serious allegation. It’s a matter that our society in no kind of way condones any attack on any women but there’s an allegation, somebody is saying this is what transpired. The media , the public are subjected to one side because I think the media has basically already tried this matter no ? You are not part of the jury or worse the judge but the matter has already been tried out here in public opinion but what goes on inside a court which is based on the facts, which is based on evidence and which is based on the law. We have not reached that stage as yet. No democratic society that believes in the rule of law could ever attempt to deprive any professional person of carrying on their profession because what is before the court is an allegation. It’s not exposing anybody to being at risk or in any danger. It’s a very serious matter, the group that keep in contact with each other have said that they’re offering their full support legally to their colleague and everybody has to wait until the trial is concluded and then we can take whatever positions we would wish to take but somebody makes an allegation even a serious allegation it’s still an allegation.”
Orson Elrington himself spoke publicly about the matter last year. In a July 16, 2024 interview, Elrington described the case as an ordeal but said it is a situation that will ultimately make him stronger.
Orson Elrington, Attorney: “I’ve always said that in every situation in every issue you face it’s an opportunity for you to grow, it’s a lesson. And so in every situation it is just to try to find that lesson. The almighty presents these lessons for us and although at the moment we’re not able to might not clearly be able to see the lesson once we’re able to see the lesson, once we’re able to arrive at how we can grow then we can be better people, better professionals, better all around.”
The trial will proceed once the court determines whether the evidence will be heard publicly or in camera
English (US) ·