Magistrate John Ballah has dismissed all criminal charges against Esworth Lewis, the proprietor of Roy’s Pharmacy, Arnos Vale, following a confrontation at a bar in Calder that left one man with gunshot wounds. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to disprove that Lewis acted in lawful self-defense when he discharged his firearm.
The incident, which occurred on the night of October 10, 2025, began as a disagreement over space on a public road. Mr. Lewis was driving behind a BMW operated by Omario Pereira. After a dispute regarding the manner in which the BMW stopped and Lewis’s attempt to pass, both vehicles ended up near a bar where a physical altercation developed.
During the confrontation, Mr. Pereira—who admitted to consuming alcohol earlier that evening—struck Mr. Lewis on the head with a Hairoun beer bottle. Mr. Lewis responded by firing two shots from his Glock 19 pistol, both of which struck Mr. Pereira in the abdomen.
The central issue of the trial was whether the danger to Mr. Lewis had ended before the shots were fired. Mr. Pereira testified that 30 to 45 seconds had passed between the two shots and claimed he had already dropped the bottle.
However, defense witnesses provided a “materially different account”. Witness Alex Thomas testified that he saw two men attacking Mr. Lewis, with one using a bottle while Mr. Lewis was “bent over”. He stated that the shots were fired while the attack was still ongoing. Another witness, Osneil Ferguson, corroborated seeing an active attack involving a beer bottle close to the time of the gunshots.
In the written decision, the Magistrate noted that a glass bottle directed at the head is capable of inflicting serious injury, and a person is not required to wait for a “fracture, laceration or loss of consciousness” before defending themselves.
The court found that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the danger had passed. Key factors in the acquittal included:
- Witness Credibility: The evidence of the defense witnesses, which was largely unchallenged, left a “reasonable possibility” that Lewis was still being attacked when both shots were fired.
- Defendant’s Conduct: Following the shooting, Mr. Lewis did not flee; instead, he assisted in lifting the victim, transported him for medical treatment, and surrendered himself and his firearm to the police. The court found this conduct more consistent with a “sudden defensive reaction” than criminal intent.
Because the prosecution could not disprove self-defense, the court found Mr. Lewis not guilty of:
- Unlawful Wounding (contrary to Section 174 of the Criminal Code).
- Use of a Firearm with Intent to Commit an Offence (contrary to Section 19(1)(a) of the Firearms Act).
Both charges were officially dismissed. The parties have been notified of their right to appeal the decision within 21 days.
