David Patterson’s indecent exposure charge: Complainant tells court he was alarmed, shocked, embarrassed

…as DPP appeals Magistrate’s decision to dismiss charge

Director of Public Prosecutions, Shalimar Ali-Hack has filed an appeal against the decision of Magistrate Dylon Bess to dismiss the indecent exposure charge against Alliance For Change (AFC) Member of Parliament, David Patterson.
Patterson, who was a Minister under the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Administration, was charged in July 2023 for exposing his genitals to a man, and for using obscene language to that man. He was placed on $70,000 bail when he had appeared before Senior Magistrate Leron Daly at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts and denied the charges.
It is alleged that Patterson exposed his genitals to Ramroop Odit on July 16, 2023 at Seaforth Street, Section A, Campbellville, Georgetown.
This is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act. It is further alleged that on the same date and location, he used obscene language to Odit, causing a breach of the peace and provoking Odit to cause him distress.
Odit, in his evidence in chief during the trial, stated that he has known Patterson for several years before the incident and Patterson frequented a shop opposite his workplace. He told the court that on July 16, 2023 about 20:05h, while at his workplace he saw a man coming over to his workplace passageway and he recognised the man as David Patterson, who then stopped at two of the garbage barrels in front of the passageway and started to urinate on them.
In his evidence, the man said that Patterson turned easterly towards him with his penis still out, shook it at him and said “this is the f**king government reserve and I can pee anywhere ‘cause is whole night I gone pee.”
Odit further testified that Patterson’s penis was about two and a half inches in length and dark brown in complexion and when he saw it, he was alarmed, shocked and felt very embarrassed.
He told the court that he was about 35 feet away from Patterson and nothing blocked his view, adding that about 25 minutes later, Patterson returned and walked right up to the main gate of his workplace and started to urinate on the gate and the gate post.
According to his evidence in chief, he told Patterson “Sir, this is full disrespect; you cannot pee on our gate” and Patterson said to him “you carry ya s**nt, I can pee anywhere ‘cause I ain’t done pee yet”. According to Odit’s testimony, he was about three feet away from Patterson.
He told the court that about 25 minutes later, Patterson again returned to their workplace passageway and started to urinate on a white Premio car parked right in the passageway. He told the court that he told Patterson “Sir, I want you to know, that I have great respect for you and I want you to know that you are on camera being recorded.”
The footage was extracted by a Police rank from Odit’s workplace after a report was filed. The video footage was tendered and played in court by that rank and that rank identified the man seen in the video as David Patterson. In the video, Patterson was seen on three occasions urinating in front of Odit’s workplace. On the close of the prosecution’s case, the defence made a no-case submission and the prosecution responded.
On February 1, 2024, Magistrate Bess upheld the no-case submission and dismissed all three charges stating, among other things, that the prosecution’s case rest solely on the evidence of Odit and even though there was video footage, it only shows a male doing certain acts and the area was noisy and the only voice he heard using indecent language sounded like the complainant’s. The Magistrate added that there was no support apart from the complainant’s contention for these offences that he claimed occurred and that it was very dangerous for a court to convict a person on the testimony of a single witness.
The Magistrate further stated that the video did not assist the court in identifying the man in the video committing certain offences nor identify any genitals of the person. However, it does indicate that the person in the video had his hands by his genitals on at least two occasions and appeared to be urinating.
The Magistrate in his ruling said that he was not convinced that where Odit stated that he was that he could have reasonably seen the suspect’s penis, much less describe it from that distance. The Magistrate also added that he observed that the suspect was dark in complexion and he cannot understand how the accused’s penis can appear to be brown in complexion when the accused is a dark person and under cross examination, the complainant could not say much about the under garments. The Magistrate added that he did not find any evidence of an intention to cause alarm or discomfort in any way by the suspect in the video.
In video widely circulated on social media, a man believed to be Patterson was seen exposing his private parts along the Railway Embankment Road in Kitty, Georgetown, in the vicinity of the Alliance For Change Headquarters.