A judge has declined to find that the Mid-Atlantic Wellness Institute acted in contempt in the wake of an incident in which a witness allegedly threatened jurors with a metal pipe.

The Supreme Court heard this week that counsel for the defendant in the case had raised questions about the mental state of the witness and an assessment had been ordered by the courts.

However, no report was provided, with counsel for MWI claiming that no request was received until the morning of the incident.

Acting Puisne Judge Mark Pettingill said there had been a “far-reaching” systemic breakdown that further inquiries were needed, but said he was not satisfied that MWI was in contempt given all the circumstances.

While he said he would release a full written ruling, he told the court the “fundamental issue” in the matter was the need for timely disclosure of evidence to defendants.

“The issue of timely disclosure in criminal trials is essential for the administration of justice and the constitutional right of the defendant to be able to fully prepare for their case,” Mr Justice Pettingill said.

“It appears there were plenty of reasons why the disclosure requested from MWI was not given over to the Crown in a timely manner.

“Leaving aside for a moment what could have or should have been done during the course of time that this was requested, disclosure was not made available and ultimately the court made an order on the morning of April 17, at the start of the trial, that a psychiatric report should be delivered to the Crown in order that they could serve it on the defence.

“It is entirely unsatisfactory that any order of this court should be made at this particular junction of the trial, causing delay.”

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court was set to continue the trial of Trovaughn Smith, 38, who had denied allegations of assault causing wounding and possession of a bladed article.

However, it is alleged that before the trial could begin, a witness made his way into the jury room with a metal pipe and started to threaten the jurors.

The Crown subsequently requested a nolle prosequi — a request for an indefinite adjournment — indicating that they would not proceed with the case against Mr Smith at this time.

Perry Smith, 60, denied charges in connection with the incident during an appearance in Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Mr Justice Pettingill said he had made an order from the bench for a psychiatric report on the witness and it was important that orders of the court be followed.

He added that if a party believes the orders are “imperfect”, applications should be made to set them aside as soon as possible.

Mr Justice Pettingill said he was satisfied that MWI was made aware of the order and had a responsibility to comply or raise an objection, despite the order not coming in writing.

However, he noted that MWI could not have given the court a report as requested because no such report existed.

“The court ordered a psychiatric report — the fact that there isn’t one is neither here nor there. The order needs to be addressed, whether it’s right or wrong, and that didn’t occur,” he said.

Mr Justice Pettingill said it was essential that the public — and, in this case, the jury — have confidence in the legal system.

“The court is of the view that there were breakdowns in the system in this instance which require fulsome departmental inquiry, both by the Crown and the hospital’s administration, to make sure that required disclosure happens in a timely manner,” he said.

Ben Adamson, counsel for MWI, said that his client did not receive any requests for a report until Tuesday morning, when the incident at the court took place.

“It’s entirely wrong to suggest that my client disobeyed an order,” he said. “They never saw it.”

Mr Justice Pettingill responded that he accepted “something was being done” and the incident had highlighted a breakdown in the system.

He added: “Do I think your client could have handle it better? I do. I will not reconcile myself from that.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers