A Southampton teenager due to be sentenced for allegedly committing grievous bodily harm changed his plea on Friday in Supreme Court.

Seventeen-year-old Giovanni Carmichael, of Whaling Hill, has been accused of the crime against Jermaine Nesbitt on December 6, 2004. Carmichael?s lawyer Larry Scott said there had been ?some confusion? over the matter when Carmichael had been arraigned on March 1, 2005.

Mr. Scott had been unable to appear because of another court matter, and he said he asked Carmichael?s matter be rolled over.

However, the confusion arose when Carmichael didn?t see Mr. Scott and ?panicked?. As a result, said Mr. Scott, Carmichael pleaded guilty to the charges when he should not have done so.

Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons allowed Carmichael to withdraw his plea of guilty and set the matter down for arraignment on April 1. In another matter, Aldo Nelson Pace, who owns Aldo?s Carpet on North Shore Road, appeared for his alleged involvement in drugs trafficking. Pace previously pleaded guilty in Supreme Court to handling cocaine intended to supply either by him or another person on March 28, 2003. Pace also admitted handling cocaine intended for supply on November 16 and possessing cannabis intended for supply on March 28, 2003. He pleaded not guilty to possessing equipment fit and intended for use as a drug on November 16.

On Friday in Supreme Court, Pace?s lawyer Victoria Pearman asked for additional time to file paperwork with regard to the matter. However, Crown counsel Paula Tyndale objected, stating that the the court should not ?bend over backwards? to accommodate the defence since six months? preparation should be enough unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Ms Pearman said the exceptional circumstances were that ?we have 300 members of the Bermuda Bar, but only eight to ten do criminal defence work?.

Ms Pearman also said she anticipated that at Pace?s sentencing, there would be the need for a Newton Hearing. Newton hearings are special sessions called because a defendant admits the crime but disputes the facts of the case laid against him by prosecutors.

When Mrs. Justice Simmons asked Ms Pearman about what facts would be disputed, Ms Pearman mentioned the ?peculiar circumstances? where the offences were committed were such that Pace denied that he had trafficked drugs. And Ms Pearman called the applicable law in the matter ?draconian?. However, Mrs. Justice Simmons retorted: ?It is draconian, and it?s meant to be.?

?Even if the facts indicate momentary handling, that?s sufficient. It?s meant to be severe and to stop the damage drug trafficking does to the community,? said Mrs. Justice Simmons. ?Why should we exclude someone at the lower end (of the trade)??

?They are part of the network required to make drugs trafficking a successful business... if we cut off the lower end, then people at the upper end have no one to do their legwork,? she added.

Mrs. Justice Simmons said the defence must indicate in writing the disputed facts of the case by March 17, and fixed the matter for mention on March 21 where Ms Pearman?s application for an extension would be revisited.