These magistrates’ decisions must be condemned

Feb 26, 2019 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Magistrate Leron Daly sentenced a twenty-year-old School of the Nations student to three years for possession of eight ecstasy pills weighing five grams. A week before this case, a judge sentenced a Berbician to three years, after he pleaded guilty to murder. He killed a father of two. He said his act was a reaction to the taunts of the victims.
The 20-year-old fellow had no previous conviction, killed no one, pleaded guilty like the murder accused but got the same sentence. By now you would know that there isn’t a damn thing that makes sense in Guyana. A first offender jailed for possession of five grams of a prohibited substance? Is this country heading for a tsunamic type human disaster?
Justice Navindra Singh’s curious question to a prosecutor last Friday in the High Court certainly had the unintended effect of exposing what goes on in the magistracy. The UG student charged with a bomb threat to the institution was denied bail. One of the reasons the magistrate refused to grant bail was the prosecutor’s contention that the student would tamper with witnesses.
This is a country whose permanent infernos have no parallels in world history. You can end up being remanded for weeks because some magistrates do not know their functions. The young lady applied for bail in the High Court. The prospector again requested bail denial because of the witness tampering possibility. Enter Justice Navindra Singh.
When the witness interference explanation came up, Justice Singh asked for details. The prosecutor had none to offer. How can you tell a judge that an accused should be remanded based on an explanation for which you have not a scintilla of evidence.
The prosecutor could offer no details of why and how which witness will be intimated by the accused. Justice Singh released the young lady of $10,000 bail
Now here is the interesting angle in the bail hearing. What Justice Singh asked is what Magistrate Ann McLennan should have done in the first place because that was her judicial duty. When the prosecutor asked for bail denial and cited potential for interfering with witnesses, the magistrate should have asked for details.
Charrandass Persaud is now the centre of a volcanic eruption but he wrote a very instructive newspaper letter two years ago. Charran noted that young people are being charged with possession of ganja and remanded while the substance is yet to be tested. In order words, the police could pick you up for dried Conga pump, accuse you of possessing marijuana, charge you, the magistrate denies bail and the police lab is still to receive the substance for testing.
By the time the Conga pump is tested, you would have spent months on remand because you couldn’t afford a lawyer.
A magistrate is not and cannot be an interested party in a court case. A magistrate is a neutral judge. When a prosecutor outlines a reason for bail refusal, the magistrate must determine if the reason carries merit. The magistrate cannot simply accept the prosecutor’s word.
The denial of bail by Magistrate McLennan because of the prosecutor’s request not accompanied by the submission of at least a one concrete fact of witness tampering is the sad story of the injustices that characterize the judicial system.
The young lady accused of a bomb threat to UG no doubt could have afforded a high priced lawyer and so she got bail. Too many poor folks cannot go that route and they languish on remand.
I remember the case of an accused named Taylor that I got involved in because the injustice was grave. The prosecutor told Magistrate Judy Latchman that Ms. Taylor was wrongly charged and therefore he is not opposing bail.
Magistrate Latchman still denied bail. When I asked the family about applying to the High Court for bail, they told me the lawyer that originally appeared in the lower court wanted a large sum to petition the High Court and that was far out of their reach. Taylor stayed on remand until Dexter Todd took her case and secured bail in the High Court.
I complained to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) about Magistrate Latchman. One day, a court official handed me a letter from the then head of the JSC, then Chancellor Carl Singh. I was informed that an inquiry found that Magistrate Latchman did not commit a judicial indiscretion. The lawyer and I were never called to testify. That inquiry was done in Chato’s Land.
We will continue to have outlandish judgements from magistrates without anyone asking the relevant question– are some of them fit and proper?

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News