Nandlall’s Law Reports charge stands - as Appeal Court dismisses application to have it quash

Nandlall’s Law Reports charge stands – as Appeal Court dismisses application to have it quash

Dec 19, 2019 News

Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall has failed in another bid to have a charge against him for the theft of Law Reports quashed. Yesterday, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application.
In his court action, Nandlall had requested a judicial review of a decision by Magistrate Fabayo Azore to overrule a no-case submission in his trial into a charge which alleged that between May 18, 2015 and May 29, 2015 while being a bailee, in his then capacity as Attorney General, he fraudulently converted 14 Commonwealth Law Reports valued at $2,313,853, property of the Ministry of Legal Affairs, to his own use and benefit.
Following the Magistrate ruling, Nandlall was called on to lead a defence in his trial. The Court of Appeal in its ruling said that it will not intervene in the matter as the trial is already underway. While the court said it can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to review such a decision by a Magistrate, this is only in extreme and limited circumstances. The ruling of the Court of Appeal now paves the way for Magistrate Azore to continue hearing evidence in the trial, unless Nandlall appeals to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
In the meantime, the former Attorney General, who has pleaded not guilty to the charge, is out in self bail.
Before approaching the Court of Appeal, Nandlall had taken his issue with the Magistrate’s decision to the High Court before Chief Justice Roxane George. Through his lawyers, Senior Counsel Neil Boston and Attorney-at-law Devindra Kissoon, Nandlall sought a declaration that the charge against him does is an offence unknown to the laws of Guyana, and therefore it is in violation of Articles 40, 144(4) and 149(d) of the Constitution of Guyana.

The Chief Justice, however, was not in agreement. In fact, she held that the offence is one provided for under Section 165 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, which states, “Everyone who commits larceny or any felony hereby made punishable like simple larceny, shall (except in the cases hereinafter otherwise provide for) be liable to imprisonment for three years.”

Nandlall had contended that Magistrate Azore erred in law when she overruled the no-case submission made by his lawyer and when she failed/refused to give any sufficient reason for her judgment as required by the Judicial Review Act Chapter 3:06 and that her ruling is contrary to, and in violation of, Articles 40, 144(4) and 149(d) of the Constitution of Guyana.
In addressing this, the Chief Justice stressed that Nandlall failed to outline how his constitutional rights were being violated.

She said that from the evidence before her, the Magistrate made a judicial decision, and was not inclined to provide reasons on why she overruled the no-case submission. The Chief Justice had explained that Magistrates usually give reasons for decision at the end of trials through a Memorandum of Reason. The Chief Justice outlined that the Magistrate was not in violation of Section 15 of the Judicial Review Act, which speaks of providing reasons for administrative and not judicial decisions.

Section 15 (1) of the Act states, “It is the duty of any person or body making an administrative decision, if requested in accordance with this section by any person adversely affected by the decision, to supply that person with a statement setting out the findings on material question of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based and giving the reasons for the decision.”

Nandlall was previously reported as saying that when he took up post as Attorney General, he did so at a loss and it was for that reason he agitated for the State to pay for the Law Reports. He had said that the arrangement received the blessings of then Head of State Donald Ramotar. However, investigators are contending that because the books were bought with State funds, they cannot be the property of Nandlall, and in fact the State should not have entered into such an arrangement in the first place.

The Ministry of Legal Affairs is contending that there is no evidence of an agreement between Nandlall and Ramotar, and even assuming that there was such an agreement, the use of public funds in this manner is a flagrant violation of the Financial Management and Accountability Act. Nandlall was charged after SOCU, an arm of the Guyana Police Force, completed investigations.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News