A young man ordered to submit a urine sample for drug screening is in custody because he allegedly handed in someone else’s urine.
Percival Anthony Williams Jr., 20, appeared in Summary Court last Tuesday charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by providing a sample of urine he knew was not his own.
Crown Counsel Nicola Moore told Acting Magistrate Valdis Foldats the case against Williams was strong. He is accused of going to the hospital, where the sample was to be handed in, and approaching another person to provide the sample. Ms Moore said the other person was a female.
The urine has been sent for analysis, she advised; the level of a certain substance will show whether the provider was male or female.
Williams’ alleged action was a clear flouting of an order of the court, Ms Moore said. She objected to bail on the basis that he would be unable to comply with bail conditions without committing further offences.
The magistrate agreed the allegation was serious. If proved, it showed premeditation by involving another person and a lack of concern for the justice system. He remanded Williams in custody until Thursday.
On Thursday, Williams came before Magistrate Grace Donalds. Crown Counsel Kirsty-Ann Gunn continued the objection to bail.
She gave further details of the charge. She said after Williams approached the other person and obtained her urine to hand in, the forensic services lab rejected that sample. He was asked to drink some water and provide another sample. He was allowed to leave the lab.
It is alleged he approached the same person as before and requested another sample from her. He then returned to the lab and handed it over.
Williams has not yet entered a plea.
Mrs. Gunn asked for time to research sentencing to assist the court in the event of a guilty plea. She said there are no precedents in Cayman for offences involving drug screen tests.
Williams asked for bail, telling the court he had a job to go to and a relative who would stand surety for him.
The magistrate withheld bail, based on the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence and the likelihood of committing further offences.
The matter was set for mention again on 10 July.