Gun-related charges against “Doggie” withdrawn; case continues Dec. 5

Five of the six charges that were brought against Bradley Sampson, a 36-year-old Georgetown businessman popularly known as “Doggie”, have been withdrawn.

In July, Sampson was slapped with several charges in relation to a chaotic confrontation at the Square of the Revolution.

The incident allegedly stemmed from a dispute over payments to individuals mobilised to participate in a political march hosted by We Invest in Nationhood (WIN).

Sampson was slapped with six charges in total: possession of a firearm without a licence, for which bail was set at $150,000; unlawful carrying of a firearm in a public place, which attracted a bail sum of $50,000; unlawful wounding of Genista Fordyce, for which the Magistrate imposed bail in the amount of $30,000; threatening behaviour, for which bail was fixed at $20,000; disorderly behaviour, which the Magistrate set bail at $10,000; and obscene language, for which he was granted $10,000 bail.

But when the case was called again today, the prosecution informed that all gun related charges will be dropped due to insufficient evidence.

The other charges, obscene language, wounding and threatening behaviour, were previously dropped.

Now, Sampson only faces a disorderly behaviour charge and that matter comes up again on December 5.

Sampson had turned himself in to the police in the company of his attorney, Jevon Cox, after a wanted bulletin had been issued for him in relation to the confrontation.

The alleged victim, identified as Genista Fordyce, claimed that she was assaulted by Sampson with a firearm during a heated argument over underpayment for mobilisation work. That incident was partially captured on video and circulated widely on social media, showing an aggressive exchange between Sampson and the woman in the vicinity of Cuffy Square.

Cox had previously contended that no firearm was recovered at the scene of the incident or during subsequent police operations. He told the court that for any object to be legally classified as a firearm, ballistic testing must be conducted by a specialist.

In Sampson’s case, no such testing allegedly had been done, and no expert was presented to testify whether the object seen in a circulated video was indeed a firearm. According to the lawyer, law enforcement was relying entirely on social media videos and photographs, which, he argued, are insufficient to confirm the presence of a weapon under the law.

Cox had also noted that the virtual complainant, Genista Fordyce, had not attended court, and that no medical certificate had been produced to support the unlawful wounding charge.

He stated that Fordyce had reportedly informed police that she no longer wished to proceed with the matter, yet the charges were still pursued.