Latest update April 2nd, 2025 8:00 AM
Oct 14, 2008 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
I refer to an item on page four of the issue of 29th September 2008, under the caption “How is justice dispensed in the courts of Guyana?” submitted by Charrandass Persaud, attorney-at-law.
For Mr. Persaud to question the dispensation of justice and impute unfairness to the magistrate by referring to the two cases is unfortunate and unfair at the least.
There has been such a public outcry against offences of robbery-under-arms where guns are alleged to have been used that, most, if not all, magistrates have been refusing to place such accused persons on bail, justifiably in most cases.
The verbal attack on the magistrate contained in the said letter was totally uncalled for, and is an unjustifiable indictment on the integrity of our magistrates.
In the first place, the offence of “attempt murder” is far from being prevalent. On the other hand, “robbery under arms” is very prevalent. Hardly a day goes by without some person being charged for the latter offence.
Secondly, though both offences are bailable, there is no condition that “special reasons” must exist before a person charged with “attempt to commit murder” can be placed on bail.
However, since Mr. Persaud’s client was also charged (as stated by Mr. Persaud) with unlawful possession of firearm under the Firearms Act, he ought not to have been granted bail unless special reasons existed.
This condition came about as a result of an amendment (by Act No. 17 of 2007) to the Firearms Act. Section 7 of the Amending Act states:
The Principal Act is amended by the insertion after section 44 of the following section as section 44 A —
44A.
No person arrested for any offence under section 16, section 37 or section 38 shall be admitted to bail unless the prosecution has had an opportunity to intervene and unless there are special reasons for admitting the person to bail, which shall be recorded in writing, and the trial shall be within reasonable time.”
Section 16 of the Principal Act makes it an offence for anyone to be in possession of a firearm without being the holder of a licence.
One can gather from Mr. Persaud’s letter that he was unaware of the amendment, and therefore did not advance any special reasons why bail should be granted to his client.
The amending Act was published in the Official Gazette of the 28th May, 2007, and came into force on the 17th March, 2008 by order published on the 15th March, 2008. In addition, the fact of the amendment was widely published in the print media.
It is expected that those of us who practice at the criminal bar would keep ourselves informed of amendments to legislation that create criminal offences.
Unfortunately, it seems that the magistrate himself was not aware of the amendment. However, I do not think that he should be faulted because of that.
Copies of amending legislation are not these days sent to the various Magisterial Districts, as they were in the distant past. Perhaps those in authority would take steps to remedy such omissions.
The above should not be taken to mean that I am advocating that in no case should those charged with robbery under arms be placed on bail, or those charged with unlawful possession of firearms not be placed on bail.
Everything depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. Mr. Persaud should be more circumspect in reporting matters to the press.
M. Bacchus
Apr 02, 2025
Kaieteur Sports- Golfer Joseph Szeplaki was crowned winner of the Lusignan Golf Club (LGC)/ STP Investments Inc. Tournament held on Saturday March 30, 2025 at their East Coast Demerara (ECD)-based...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- The United States has spoken. Reacting to the conviction of Marine Le Pen in a French... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- Recent media stories have suggested that King Charles III could “invite” the United... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]