This magistrate should be removed from the bench

Mar 07, 2014 Letters

---

Dear Editor,     
If the Chief Justice, the Chancellor, our Parliament, women groups, our human rights organizations and our political parties including the PPP remain silent on the egregious assault on the traditions of fairness and neutrality in the dispensation of justice by Magistrate Judy Latchman, then Guyana is definitely beyond redemption.
I taught philosophy to Ms. Latchman when she was my student at UG and my wish is for the Guyanese society to demand the removal of this magistrate from the bench. I have met with the President of the Bar Association yesterday on the issue of her removal and I have completed my letter of same to the Chancellor.
Let me make my position clear – what this magistrate did last Tuesday is horrible and that is putting it mildly. Ms. Latchman should be removed from the magistracy peremptorily. Every school kid all over the world knows that a judge (meaning magistrate and High Court judges) are compelled by law and morality to be neutral. They analyze what the defence and prosecutor present and give judgement based on what is in front of them. At all times a judge must appear to be neutral
The prosecutor in Ms. Latchman’s  court told the bench that the accused, Alana Taylor, should not have been charged, it was a mistake, the decision didn’t come from the DPP and the mistake should be corrected. The defence asked for bail, the prosecutor offered no objection. The magistrate ignored what was in front of her and denied bail. So who is the real prosecutor in Court 3? Is Magistrate Latchman a neutral judge?
Based on what occurred in her court with Ms. Taylor, Ms. Latchman has sullied the name of judicial fairness in this country. Prosecutor Hunte said in open court that his superiors informed him that the charge was a mistake. I went to interview his superiors. Superintendent Jessamy refused to speak so did the Superintendent of the Court at Brickdam, Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper refused give me his first name
Commander Vyphius was very professional with me. He summoned both Jessamy and Cooper in front of me and suggested that they respond to my queries. He then asked them for an explanation why Taylor was charged when she should not have been. Jessamy told the meeting that he would have to speak to Prosecutor Hunt to ascertain exactly what was said about him in court. Cooper said he cannot withdraw a charge once it is in the system
Prosecutor Hunt also named Inspector Guinness as one of the investigating ranks who told him that Taylor should not have been charged
While interviewing Guinness at Albertown Police Station, a fire broke out in a room where there was no access to it. Ranks had to climb unto the ceiling to extinguish it. Guinness said he is not speaking to me even though I told him Commander Vyphuis has requested Jessamy and Cooper to talk to me. I asked him to call Mr. Vyphuis. He said he will do so. But I don’t know if he did.
Mr. Burch-Smith of the Bar Association told me he cannot ask for the removal of the Magistrate because he needs to be more familiar with what Ms. Latchman did. But he did say that he would be uncomfortable discussing the case since Ms. Taylor’s lawyer is his law firm partner and it would not be proper to analyse the Magistrate’s conduct lest he be accused of bias. But he accepted to be quoted in saying if the facts are true then for Magistrate Latchman to refuse bail would be very unusual.
I spoke to Mark Waldron, Taylor’s lawyer and what I was told I cannot repeat but Mr. Waldron may not have faith much longer in the rule of law in his country.  But then again who has? Let me repeat what are the horrible implications for the rule of law in this country. Magistrate Latchman removed her legal obligation to be neutral, disregarded what was in front of her and acted like a prosecutor thereby jeopardizing the priceless principle of fairness before the law
Ms. Taylor was no longer an object of threat to the society; the prosecutor informed the court that she should not have been in front of the court, then by what reason, logic or evidence the magistrate used to deny Ms. Taylor her freedom? It is for the prosecutor to deny Ms. Taylor her freedom not the magistrate. The magistrate has to act on what is in front of her and in front of her was an accused that was not supposed to be charged. And who informed the court about that? The prosecutor himself. Why did Latchman deny bail then? Only one answer stands out. The magistrate had become the prosecutor
If lawyers and higher judicial officials do not seek to have this magistrate removed from the bench then how can any defence attorney accept her as a neutral judge? Let us see how sheepish Guyana will react to this latest atrocity in this tragic land.
Frederick Kissoon

---

---