Soufriere Foundation wins round one in ongoing battle over Tet Paul Nature Trail

17
Soufriere Foundation wins round one in ongoing battle over Tet Paul Nature Trail


PRESS RELEASE –
On Thursday 18th, September 2014, Magistrate Robert Innocent of the Second District Court found Miss Maureen Fontinelle of the United Kingdom guilty under Section 471 of the Criminal Code of St. Lucia.

Miss Fontinelle was found guilty of three (3) offences of using and interfering with property without authority and asked to pay EC$500.00 for each offence.

Miss Fontinelle’s conviction came about as a result of a legal suit brought by the State for her involvement in the removal and attempts to reprint three (3) signs which belonged to the Soufriere Foundation.

According to the Chief Executive Officer of the Soufriere Foundation, Walter Francois, “The verdict should be a lesson to Maureen that she cannot do as she so pleases in this country. This country has laws and she must operate within its limits. He added, “In only a rogue and lawless country would Maureen be allowed to get away with her actions in this matter.”

The signs which cost over EC$5,000.00 were removed on June 26, 2014 at various locations around Soufriere.

The court ruling serves as an initial victory for the Soufriere Foundation who seek to have closure over the operational dispute at the Tet Paul Nature Trail.

In the next month the organization will be going to the civil court for compensation for the cost of the signs and legal cost.

(0)(0)

No posts to display

17 COMMENTS

  1. so does tet paul legally belong to ms Fontelle. n is that agreement for rent over so she took down the signs. whats going on

    (0)(0)

  2. please miss victoria get your facts rite....... the foundation owes nothing to any one!!
    this dispute is none of the foundations fault although they got tied up in it,.......... also has alot to do with maureen and her family

    (0)(0)

  3. The SRDF won because according to Section 471 of the Criminal Code of St. Lucia, "Any person who without lawful authority or excuse, the proof
    of which lies on him or her, uses or interferes with, or in any other way,
    commits any wrong or trespass in respect of, to, or upon any animal, boat,
    vehicle or other thing whatsoever, is liable on summary conviction to a fine
    of five hundred dollars although no damage may have been caused by such
    offence."

    (0)(0)

  4. The SRDF won their case because according to Section 471 of the Criminal Code of St. Lucia, "Any person who without lawful authority or excuse, the proof
    of which lies on him or her, uses or interferes with, or in any other way,
    commits any wrong or trespass in respect of, to, or upon any animal, boat,
    vehicle or other thing whatsoever, is liable on summary conviction to a fine
    of five hundred dollars although no damage may have been caused by such
    offence."

    (0)(0)

  5. Next time do a little more research on that story please..There is alot more to it ..Being am from Soufriere .You just printed a half ass story with the foundation victory at a battle in an on going war ..SMH ..

    (0)(0)

  6. Miss Fontenelle was wrong to have interfered with asign that belonged to the SRDF. We must respect the property of others. However, that does not exonerate the SRDF paying the Fontenelles what is due to them in rent. Further, the SRDF is delinquent in handing over the management of the nature trail to the community. I believe the SRDF should focus its efforts in facilitating the community's management of the trail rather than waste precious resources on frivilous legal action against the people who made Tet Paul the reality that it is today.

    (0)(0)

  7. I pray that the Foundation come to their senses and pay the Fontenelles their back dated ?rent. Have you ever heard of people using someone's land for nothing? How about the new board that was printed? It was 'Tet Paul Scenic Trail'. Who changed it to Tet Paul Nature Trail? Did the Foundation not commit an offence by changing it?

    (0)(0)

    • I totally agree that Foundation has to pay the back rent. They cannot be made to get away with not paying the rent

      (0)(0)

  8. As always the Foundation is continuing to lie through their back teeth. Instead of paying the rent that is owed to the Fontenelles, they are continuing to use scaremongering tactics. Will they ever be able to 'manage' Tet Paul again? I do not think so. Miss Fontenelle was only charged $500.00, when the Foundation spent thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to defend them. Is there any logic in that? They have been doing a piss poor job of managing.
    There is a pending case by the Fontenelles for back payment of over $200,000.00. Hope the Foundation are forced to pay back every last cent. Wake up St Lucia, get the facts right.

    (0)(0)

  9. You mean the signs cost $5000.00 each and she was charged only $500.00 on each case/something SEEMS WRONG WITH THAT MAGISTRATE.Am I missing something?

    (0)(0)

  10. Did you ever expect to get any clarification or explanation on any legal issue that the government is involved in? All these articles are cleverly written in a manner to seemingly give information while what is concealed is significant. I am convinced that there is more to this. Magistrate court is insignificant in legal circles this why most significant cases are appealed.

    (0)(0)

  11. This article is all over the place. I don't quite understand what she did, can you explain further? She "removed and reprinted them?" What does that mean? What is the ongoing dispute?

    (0)(0)

    • She did have them taken down, yes, but she didn't reprint the exact signs that were taken down. Instead, she went to Duboulay's Hardware store to purchase her own material to create her own signs which read "Tet Paul Scenic Trail" baring in mind that the name "Tet Paul NATURE Trail" didn't belong to her.

      (0)(0)

Comments are closed.