Magistrate yet to file court action in ex-PM son’s case

May 30, 2015 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

---

Nearly two months after stating that she needed direction from the High Court in the matter involving the son of former Prime Minister, Samuel Hinds, city Magistrate Annette Singh is yet to file the court action.

Early last month, Singh was faced with a ‘tricky’ situation – a Defence Attorney who was adamant that she hand down a sentence from a trial she had not presided over, and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who wanted her to conduct a new trial.
As the legal wrangling over Samuel Hinds Jnr’s matter continued, Singh had insisted that the matter is constitutional, and she had no place deciding matters of such a nature.
The recently appointed Magistrate had said that by May 22, she would have already filed the matter and hopefully had it decided. But last Friday, no such thing materialized at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
Instead, the matter was never called and a date was merely given for it to be recalled. Though June 11, the new assigned date for the matter in the Magistrates’ court, is fast approaching, checks by this publication yesterday revealed that the matter has not yet been filed in the Georgetown Supreme Court.
Hinds Jnr, 34, had already been found guilty and was awaiting sentencing in relation to a year-old wounding charge by Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond. However, the case has been in limbo since the Magistrate received marching orders from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the very day she was set to sentence him.
The 34-year-old miner was charged in relation to an altercation he had with his teenaged sister-in-law. Hinds, who had accused his then 18-year-old sister-in-law, Tenza Lane, of stealing one of his cellular phones, flew in a fit and brandished a gun, thrashed and threatened to kill her at his Lot 83 Duke Street, Kingston residence on February 27, 2014.
Following the incident, an unlawful wounding charge was instituted against him. After prosecution by Police Corporal, Renetta Bentham, Magistrate Chandan-Edmond found him guilty on February 6, last.
Amid questions as to the way forward since Magistrate Chandan-Edmond’s dismissal, the DPP advised that based on the facts before the court, the issue was whether the guilty verdict of a previous Magistrate represents a final adjudication.
The Prosecution maintained that according to law, a final adjudication means a verdict plus a sentence. Since Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond had only returned a verdict and no sentence, it was not a final adjudication, she contended.
The court heard that the new presiding Magistrate may not sentence the defendant consequent to another Magistrate hearing of evidence. The DPP found that a de novo trial was befitting in the circumstance.
Responding, Attorney-at-Law Peter Hugh who represented Hinds in association with Attorney-at-Law Latchmie Rahamat, explained that Hinds Jnr. had pleaded and had already been found guilty. To have him tried twice for the same offence would be to offend the rule of autrefois, he upheld.
Hugh had said that he disagreed with the direction the Prosecution is taking, as his client ought not to be tried twice for the same offence under the principle of double jeopardy. Hearing both sides, the Magistrate had deliberated on the fact, that she was at that point tasked with delivering a decision based on constitutional arguments.
The court said though it has noted the positions of both parties, there is no law that directs whether she should hand down a sentence or conduct a new trial in the matter. Singh had stated that Magistrates are creatures of statute and since both parties have brought arguments on the basis of the constitution, she has no jurisdiction.
In the circumstance, Magistrate Singh said she will seek the High Court’s advice on how to proceed. A motion will be filed by Magistrate Singh for the constitutional court to determine whether Hinds Jnr. should be sentenced or face a new trial.
She had promised that after she receives the advice of the High Court, she will inform on the way forward. At the time, the Magistrate had said that application will be made in the High Court the following week, seeking an order on the way forward. But weeks have passed since and no motion has been filed.
The Magistrate had set the matter to last Friday, stating that she is expecting a decision to be returned from the High Court by then. No such thing has materialized.
Prior to the DPP position, Singh had last month said that since Hinds has previously been found guilty, a retrial will be to overturn or appeal the guilty verdict, which she has no authority to do.
Singh expressed readiness to go ahead and sentence the 34-year-old on the wounding charge. Magistrate Chandan-Edmond had found Hinds guilty and was awaiting a probation report to sentence him. But the very day Chandan-Edmond was expected to deliver her decision, the Probation Officer did not show and the former Magistrate was dismissed.
Subsequently, this matter was handed to Singh, even though recently reinstated Magistrate Alex Moore has taken up the mantle in Chandan-Edmond’s court.
Since, Chandan-Edmond had not handed down the sentence, the JSC had justified that another Magistrate can hand down her sentence. But Chandan-Edmond’s decision was pending a probation report which she never had an opportunity to hear.
(Sunita Samaroo)

---

---