Dear Editor,
We are disappointed in the conduct of Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys in the handling of the Vilton Bourne matter with the pit bulls.
a)The Magistrate ought to have known that proceeding to hear a case that involved his God-Son would be perceived as being a conflict of interest. He therefore should have asked to be recused. We put it that indeed there was a conflict of interest and this was demonstrated by the show of emotions and concern that the defendant not be placed in detention. Avoiding said remand was made easier by not imposing any bond on the defendant.
b) The Magistrate ought to have known that his courtroom comment that the defendant was his God-Son would create bias in favour of the defendant. It had the potential to psychologically intimidate the prosecutor and others.
c) The Magistrate did not ensure that the released defendant gave assurances that the vicious dogs will not be allowed to escape and cause further harm to the public. Consequently, he did not take the public’s safety into account in his decision.
This defendant has shown no remorse or responsibility for his dogs’ action.
Yours faithfully,
(names and addresses supplied)
