Clash Over Open Justice as Court Weighs Closed‑Door Trial for OJ Elrington

Good evening, tensions ran high in the High Court today as a major fight over open justice broke out before the rape trial of attorney Orson “OJ” Elrington even got started. The judge signaled he was ready to close the courtroom, the Crown agreed, but the defense strongly disagreed, warning that shutting the public out could undermine both fairness and public trust. At the center of it all is one question: Should this high‑profile sexual assault case unfold in full view of the public, or behind closed doors to protect the complainant? Justice Nigel Pilgrim’s decision could set the tone for transparency in Belize’s justice system. Here’s News Five’s Isani Cayetano with the following story.

 

Isani Cayetano, Reporting

A constitutional clash over open justice unfolded in the High Court of Belize today, as the prosecutor and a defense attorney advanced sharply different arguments on whether the sexual assault trial of attorney and public figure Orson ‘OJ’ Elrington should be held behind closed doors. Before the trial could begin, Justice Nigel Pilgrim signaled an intention to close the courtroom. The Crown raised no objection. But the defense objected, warning that secrecy would undermine not only Elrington’s right to a fair hearing but also public confidence in the process. The Crown anchored its position in section 6(9)(a) of the Constitution, arguing that publicity would harm the interests of justice because witnesses are expected to recount intimate, traumatic details capable of identifying the complainant.

 

DPP Cheryl-Lyn Vidal said the defense’s insistence on public scrutiny amounted to conducting “a trial within the courtroom and one by the public” through the media. She maintained that exposing the complainant’s private life would risk re‑traumatization and degrade the quality of her evidence. The court, she argued, has the constitutional discretion, and responsibility, to protect vulnerable witnesses.

 

The defense countered with equal force. Senior Counsel Wilfred ‘Sedi’ Elrington described open justice as a “strong constitutional presumption” rooted in common-law tradition and affirmed repeatedly by courts across the Commonwealth. He warned that closing the courtroom would create a dangerous imbalance: the allegations have already been publicly aired, damaging the defendant’s reputation, yet the public would be barred from observing the testing of those allegations through cross‑examination. He argued that secrecy would breed suspicion, especially because the accused is a well‑known public figure. If the evidence collapses under scrutiny, he said, the public should be allowed to see that for themselves. Otherwise, even an acquittal could leave a permanent stain. While acknowledging the complainant’s potential discomfort, the defense urged the court to adopt less restrictive alternatives, anonymity orders, screens, or controlled questioning, rather than excluding the public entirely. He emphasized that the constitutional exceptions must be applied narrowly, not treated as a blanket rule for sexual offense cases. Tonight, we are asking: How should the Senior Courts balance the privacy and welfare of complainants with the transparency needed to maintain public trust, especially when the accused’s reputation has already been tried in the court of public opinion? Justice Pilgrim’s ruling will determine not only this high‑profile case, but also the broader expectations of transparency in Belize’s justice system. Isani Cayetano for News Five.

 

Judge Wants To Hear From Complainant Before “In Camera” Decision

 

Elrington rape case is actually heard. After listening to both sides debate whether the trial should be held behind closed doors, Justice Pilgrim shifted focus, directing the DPP to formally outline the complainant’s position. He made it clear, before the court rules on shutting the public out, the complainant’s voice must carry just as much weight as the defendant’s. That statement is due by noon on Thursday. The case picks back up at three, when the defense gets its turn to push back, and by Friday morning at nine, Justice Pilgrim is expected to hand down his decision on whether the proceedings will stay open. Representing the defense is former Attorney General and Senior Counsel Wilfred Elrington, who offered brief comments after the adjournment.

 

Shane Williams

“Any Statement Senior Counsel on the first time an in camera is being objected to?”

 

Wilfred “Sedi” Elrington, S.C., Attorney for Defense

“I don’t know if it is the first time. I used to be a judge, but I can’t remember any of these matters being tried in camera. I just can’t remember. But it has been such a long time. I just don’t remember. Things change.”

 

Shane Williams

“So, it is not precedent setting that an objection has been made to an in camera hearing for a sexual assault case?”

 

Wilfred Elrington, SC

“Might be. Might be.”

 

Shane Williams

“And what’s your take on the arguments that were made?”

 

Wilfred Elrington, SC

“I think they are both good arguments, both good arguments. Two counsel have been doing very well indeed. So we just have to wait and see what will happen. And the judge seem to be very good. I’m happy about that.” 

 

Shane Williams

“Any timeline as to when a decision is expected to be made?”

 

Wilfred Elrington, SC

“I thought he said he’s going to make his decision on Friday morning.”

 

Reporter

“At nine?”

 

Wilfred Elrington, SC

“Yes, That’s the impression I got.”

 

Attention readers: This online newscast is a direct transcript of our evening television broadcast. When speakers use Kriol, we have carefully rendered their words using a standard spelling system.

 

Watch the full newscast here: