Court of Appeal (Amendment) Bill… PNCR believes passing of Bill could infringe on citizens’ rights

Jul 26, 2008 News

---

The People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) yesterday stated its intention to collaborate with the relevant stakeholders with a view to halting an attempt by the ruling administration to march to total dictatorship.
This notion was emphasised by Legal Affairs Shadow Minister, Ms Clarissa Riehl, when the party held its weekly press conference at Congress Place, Sophia.
The government proceeded with much haste with the second reading of the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Bill No. 12 of 2008, thus confirming the PNCR’s view that the Law is specifically intended to suppress the fundamental rights of Guyanese, Mrs Riehl said.
She continued that the PNCR had earlier written to the government requesting that the Bill be delayed to facilitate the widest consultation with Opposition parties and other stakeholders.
She, however, noted that the PNCR was later advised that the Bill would not be taken through all its stages at last Thursday’s sitting of Parliament, an assurance which was disregarded.
“The opposition speakers, after exposing the dangers which the intended law posed to foundations of the settled criminal justice system and the liberty of citizens, rejected the Bill,” Mrs Riehl said.
She added that it is evident that to proceed with the Bill in its present form threatens the fundamental rights of citizens as guaranteed by Articles 139, 144, and 147 of the Constitution since it will empower the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to appeal to the highest court against any verdict of acquittal by a Judge and jury and against any decision made by a Judge in the course of a trial.
According to the Legal Affairs Shadow Minister, at present, the DPP is a constitutional functionary and should in fact operate as an independent body.
She, however, noted that following the reformation of the constitution, the DPP was placed under the Judicial Service Commission, which is tasked with appointing an individual to fill that capacity (DPP).
Mrs Riehl said that Mrs Shalimar Hack who is currently filling that appointment was a part of the DPP chamber before she was appointed.
She further added that since the DPP has authority of all criminal matters in Guyana, she has the right to take over a criminal matter and stop the prosecution completely, or even has the right to advise police to commence prosecution.
“It is a powerful role she has and it transcends the whole of Guyana…,” Riehl added.
An individual has constitutional entitlement to a fair trial within a reasonable time and once the matter reaches the level of the High Court, he or she is placed in the hands of the jury.
She noted, though, that in the case where the jury brings in a not guilty verdict, that individual has the right to have his or her freedom.
The pending Bill, Riehl said, has its intent to allow the DPP to take way the right to freedom from an individual even if he or she is acquitted.
“It is empowering her to appeal…Hitherto she never had (the right to) an appeal and that was the end of the matter. All the DPP had to do, as a result of changes in the law, was if she was dissatisfied with the conduct of the judge which led to that acquittal she could send a reference to the court of appeal…However the accused would remain acquitted.”
Mrs Riehl said that reference was there mainly for the use of other judges so that they would not make the same mistake.
It is the view of Mrs Riehl that “the state will be turned on its head” once the DPP is allowed to stay an acquittal.
This move, the Member of Parliament said, will allow for the DPP to appeal any matter in a higher court during which time an accused will have to remain incarcerated.
“This is the law they want to allow now and they can appeal not only to the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal feels the judge was correct the DPP even appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice…All that time the accused remains in the lock-ups…Because all of the straight indictable offences such as murder, treason, rape, hijacking, piracy…for which no bail is allowed, a person can remain in the lock-up.”
Mrs Riehl said that although there is a provision in the proposed Bill that bail could be granted that notion is “very hazy.
We know that if they didn’t grant bail to all the stages leading up to the trial the chances of them being granted bail there is slim.”
In essence, Mrs Riehl said that the DPP will pave the way for that person to remain imprisoned for perhaps another six years while the appeal is being worked out.
And should the ultimate decision of the final court deduce that the accused is in fact not guilty, Mrs Riehl said that the Bill does not make provision for any compensation other that the person being allowed his or her freedom at that point.
The PNCR was forced to state its objection to the passing of the Bill since it infringes on the constitutional rights of an individual, Mrs Riehl said.
The Bill has since been sent to a Select Committee and, according to Mrs Riehl, if the PNCR is not satisfied with the outcome there is always recourse to the court to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill.

---

---