Court to rule on appeal over amendment to Sexual Offences Act

Jul 17, 2018 News

The Court of Appeal is set to hand down a ruling on the constitutionality of amendments to Sexual Offences Act 2010. The matter is scheduled for decision next Tuesday at the Court of Appeal.
The case stems from a High Court ruling which essentially outlined that a Magistrate’s decision to send rape accused, Ray Bacchus, to stand trial in the High Court based on a paper committal was unlawful.
Attorney Murseline Bacchus had claimed that the paper committal, which is an amendment made to the Sexual Offences Act, trumps the rights of his client based on the provisions in the Constitution.
He claims among things that the amendment does not allow his client to test the credibility of witness statements at the magistrate’s courts through cross examination.
Former Chief Justice Ian Chang had ruled in favour of Bacchus’ arguments that the amendment to the Sexual Offences Act 2010 was unlawful. The ruling was challenged by the State.
Last month, DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack presented oral arguments in the Appeal Court and gave reasons for her contention that the amendment to the Sexual Offences Act is not unconstitutional.
The DPP contended that the provisions of that part of the Sexual Offences Act, no. 7 of 2010, which purports to give jurisdiction and power to the Magistrate to commit an accused person to a High Court trial based on a paper committal, does not contravene the rights of that person based on Article 144(1) and 144(2) of the Constitution.
The article 144(1) and 144(2) of the Constitution reads, “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence-shall be permitted to defend him or herself before the court in person or by a legal representative of his or her own choice.”
Yesterday, the DPP continued to argue in support of the paper committal and amendments to the Sexual Offences Act.
The DPP told the Court that the amendments allow for witness statements to be tendered within 45 days and at the same time, allow for the defence to raise objection to the case presented against him/her.
The DPP noted further, that an accused person is allowed to test the credibility of witnesses, but at the trial in the High Court, Ali-Hack argued that the amendment to the Sexual Offences Act gives both the accused and complainant the right to a fair hearing.
“What the paper committal does is fast track the process in which accused or complainant may spend awaiting a trial.
It was specifically created to address the issue of trauma; which the victim suffers having to recite the horrific experiences over and over again.”
“In the past, they would first have to tell their story to the police and then a magistrate at a Preliminary Inquiry (PI) and then at the trial at the High Court.
“What the paper committal does is remove this burden from the complainant; it eliminates the issue of re-victimization— in that the complainant is not saddled with the trouble of having to revisit the experience repeatedly, as is the case with a PI.”
The DPP has asked the Court to take into consideration that both accused person and the complainant will be able to cross-examine witnesses, but at the High Court.
She noted in the cases of paper committals the accused is afforded a fair hearing, in that in a matter of months, his case will be set for trial in the High Court when in the case of PI, the process takes much longer. In that regard, the DPP contended that the paper committal benefits both the victim and the accused.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News