East Street acid attack: Accused now jointly charged with alleged accomplice

– original charge withdrawn, new charge to proceed

The criminal case involving 32-year-old Keron Daniels, who was accused of orchestrating an acid attack that severely injured two women in Georgetown, took a new turn on Monday when he appeared before Senior Magistrate Fabyo Azore at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Daniels, who was previously charged alone, was on this occasion jointly charged with another accused, Ivor Billingy, in connection with the same incident. The new charge alleges that on September 3, 2025, at East Street, Georgetown, Daniels and Billingy unlawfully and maliciously threw a corrosive substance with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm to 27-year-old Genesis Leitch and 20-year-old Nirmala Subraj. The two women were reportedly attacked as they were walking along the street when a liquid believed to be acid was thrown at them. The attack left Leitch permanently disfigured and partially blind in one eye, while Subraj sustained burns to parts of her body.

Following the September attack, Daniels was identified as the alleged mastermind. Police had claimed that he orchestrated the assault after a personal disagreement involving one of the victims. He was charged later that month and first appeared before Principal Magistrate Faith McGusty. During that initial appearance, the prosecution had stated that CCTV footage captured his vehicle near the scene and that investigators possessed additional evidence linking him to the crime. Despite those assertions, when the case was called, the prosecution failed to present the video footage or supporting materials. Magistrate McGusty subsequently granted Daniels bail in the sum of $500,000, despite objections from the prosecution, which cited the seriousness of the allegations and the extent of the victims’ injuries. Daniels had since been reporting to the police station and attending all scheduled court hearings.

New charge
At his latest appearance before Magistrate Azore, the charge was reread to him, and the prosecution informed the court that a new charge had been instituted to join Daniels and Billingy as co- accused. The earlier individual charge against Daniels was therefore withdrawn and replaced by the joint charge that now names both men. The prosecutor once again objected to bail, emphasising the gravity of the offence and its impact on the victims, one of whom has lost sight in one eye.
The prosecution also pointed out that the case is being conducted through paper committal, a procedure that allows for a direct trial once the evidentiary statements are compiled, thereby speeding up the process. The court was told that if the defendants are committed and found guilty, they could face up to seven years in prison, given the severe and lasting injuries caused by the corrosive substance.

Bail transferred
Daniels was represented by an attorney who argued that his client had already been granted bail for the same offence, had complied with all the conditions imposed by the previous court, and had not interfered with the victims or witnesses. The defence further submitted that the prosecution had not yet produced the CCTV footage or other evidence it claimed to possess, and therefore, there was no justification for a fresh remand. The attorney also contended that since the earlier charge had been withdrawn and replaced by this joint charge, the existing bail should be transferred rather than forfeited, allowing Daniels to remain at liberty. The lawyer reminded the court that Daniels has appeared at every hearing, has cooperated fully with the police, and has not breached any bail conditions. He also raised concerns about what he described as irregularities in how the prosecution handled the matter, stating that the defence was not informed in advance that another accused person would be charged jointly, nor that the earlier information would be withdrawn. In response, the prosecution explained that there had been administrative delays in consolidating the charges. Prosecutors said that they had intended to withdraw the single charge against Daniels before the new joint charge was filed, but at the time, the relevant case jacket was with Principal Magistrate McGusty. As a result, the process of withdrawal and re-filing occurred later in the day, leading to both charges briefly existing simultaneously. The prosecutor also informed the court that the second defendant, Billingy, was remanded on an unrelated robbery under arms charge. Although he was granted bail by the High Court for that matter recently, he was not present in court for Monday’s proceedings. The prosecution said that since he has now been jointly charged with Daniels, a summons will be issued for him to appear at the next hearing. They asked the court to give them until October 21st to issue the summons. After hearing both sides, Magistrate Azore agreed that it would be improper for two separate charges to exist for the same offence. She therefore confirmed that the earlier charge against Daniels is formally withdrawn and that the new joint charge will proceed. The Magistrate also accepted the defence’s submission that Daniels’s existing bail be transferred to the new case, allowing him to remain out of custody. The court then adjourned the matter to October 27, 2025, for continuation.