High court interference into Magistrate Court proceeding is no need for alarm – CJ

Aug 02, 2015 News

---

Responding to concerns over what appears to be a trend in the Courts, in which lawyers are increasingly approaching the High Court to challenge proceedings ongoing before the Magistrates’ Courts, Adjudicators and other legal experts have said that the practice is legally permissible and should not be seen in a negative light.

Recently, the High Court actions taken, based on applications by attorneys representing prominent public figures, have resulted in interference into Magistrates’ Court proceedings.
Some of the matters involve former President Bharat Jagdeo, Samuel Hinds Jr. and the proprietor of Sanjay’s Jewelry, Sanjay Persaud.  There were also such moves by former Police Commissioner Henry Greene.
Attorneys representing Jagdeo, Hinds and Persaud have moved to the High Court to challenge the decisions of Magistrates in criminal proceedings against them in lower Courts.
In Jagdeo’s case, Magistrate Charlyn Artiga was ordered by High Court Judge, William Ramlal, to show why a Rule Nisi of Prohibition should not be issued, directing her from taking any steps in the proceedings on the ground that she has no jurisdiction to inquire into the charge.
Jagdeo’s lawyers had argued that the charge is fundamentally defective and legally invalid and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings is an abuse of the processes of the court.
The High Court order had also blocked Magistrate Artiga from proceeding further with the case at the level of the Magistrates’ Court.
Jagdeo had  been  placed before the  Court  on criminal charges  for alleged  incitement of racial or ethnic hatred, contrary to Section 139 D (1) (a) of the Representation of the People’s Act, Chapter 1:03.
The Magistrate had him on self bail and restricted him from travelling overseas, unless he asked the court’s permission. He subsequently moved to the High Court and had the travel restrictions overturned.
Samuel Hinds Jr, the son of former Prime Minister, has also moved to the High Court in an attempt to stay the Magistrate‘s court proceeding against him.  He had been found guilty of assaulting and threatening his 18-year-old, sister -in – law, Tenza Layne.
Hinds underwent a Magistrates’ court trial and was found guilty of the offence but before he could be sentenced, the Judicial Service Commission, intervened and dismissed the magistrate. His case was put down, pending the decision of another Magistrate.
Hinds’ attorneys recently approached  the  Supreme Court  requesting an order to stay any further prosecution / adjudication of the criminal charges filed against him.
Similarly, a lawyer representing Sanjay Persaud, the owner of Sanjay’s Jewelry moved to the High Court to challenge Magistrate’s decision, in a causing death by dangerous driving case.
Persaud was charged for driving a vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public and causing the death of Leon Hunte.
Among the grounds cited by his attorney in the constitutional motion, is the magistrate’s refusal to grant sufficient time for him to lead a defence.  The attorney essentially claimed that his client was subjected to an unfair trial in the Magistrates’ Court.
However, some observers and litigants have raised questions about the legal basis of which these proceedings are allowed and whether it could have a negative effect on the system of justice.
But, Chief Justice (Ag), Ian Chang, in an invited comment, has noted that there is no need for alarm.  The Judge explained that law provides for such proceedings under the process of Judicial Review.
Chang explained that Judicial Review allows for inferior tribunals such as Magistrates/the Magistrate Court, which have limited jurisdiction, to be subject to supervision by the Supreme Court.
This, the Chief Justice, (CJ) says will ensure Magistrates do not act ultra vires or outside their authority when presiding over cases.
Commenting further on the Judicial review, the CJ said that the procedure  is wide and one which  is not limited to challenging proceedings in Magistrates’  Court but the decisions at the level of the Director of Public Prosecutions(DPP), commissions, public boards/ official and other statutory bodies.
He said that while the process of Judicial Review will place a heavy burden on the High court, it is sometimes necessary to ensure that officers of inferior tribunals are procedurally fair and unbiased in their actions.
The High court, on the other hand, the CJ says has unlimited jurisdiction.  At the High Court a ruling is good until an appeal is set aside.
According to Chang, within the justice system, there must be room for redress and remedies that allow litigants the right to challenge any proceeding with reasonable grounds.
“Sometimes they get through. Sometimes they don’t,” he added.
Other legal minds commenting on the matter noted that while defendants have the right to  challenge  a  proceeding which they  feel may be unfair to them ; in some cases  a challenge to a  magistrate  proceeding, can be seen as a  tactic  of delay.
One Judge explained that while such petitions may undermine the work of magistrates, the Supreme Court will only grant a request based on the circumstance of each petition. Every petition, the judge noted varies and may be granted based on the facts listed.

---

---