D.O.E. Brings ‘New/Same’ Charges Against Primose Gabourel and Dion Zabaneh

Mother and son duo, Primrose Gabourel and Dion Zabaneh, were back before Senior Magistrate Aretha Ford this morning. The Department of Environment is attempting to levy new charges on Gabourel and Zabaneh. This is after D.O.E. withdrew six charges against the seventy-six-year-old mother and her forty-three-year-old son earlier this year. D.O.E. had charged them for not adhering to stop orders in relation to a development being carried out on a seashore property in Caribbean Shores. Today in court, Legal Counsel for the Department, Jeavon Hulse, levied new charges for failure to obey an oral request as opposed to the previous charge of failure to obey a written enforcement notice. The defendants’ attorney Emil Arguelles raised preliminary objections, arguing that the prosecution is attempting to have his clients charged for the same offenses which have been already withdrawn. Hulse explained the Department’s latest legal move against Gabourel and Zabaneh.

Jeavon Hulse, Legal Counsel, D.O.E.

Jeavon Hulse

“From what has happened, the first time when we appeared before the court, this is one of those situation where you always hear people to go court and things get struck out on technicality. This is what they are trying to do because clear as day, the offenses were committed. Everyone saw it. So now what we are arguing and what had happened previously was that on the first occasion when we were before the court when there were issues in so far as the documents that were tendered, submitted. Now the department withdrew that. That was understood. We came back again. We had  them and nothing happened on that occasion. Now really and truly this today is that second time really that they have been brought the court. So today now they raise this argument in so far of double jeopardy that they were previously brought, a plea was taken and now we cannot bring the same charges again. So, today was essentially about hearing arguments on both sides as to whether they are right that the charges should not be brought again or that the charges can be brought again. We submitted that in so far of what has happened is that the case law is in our favour. The court rules are in our favour, that they can be brought again. So that is what we did and we argued, presented cases and that is where we are.”