Charges discontinued by the DPP this year 

Dec 18, 2022 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

---

 

Kaieteur News

By Renay Sambach

 

Today, I will highlight three instances where the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, discontinued charges.

 

In all of these matters, the DPP exercised the powers conferred on her by Article 187 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.

 

Firstly, Article 187:1 states that, “The Director of Public Prosecutions (referred to in this article as ‘the Director’) shall have power in any case in which he or she considers it desirable to do so – (a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court, other than a court martial, in respect of any offence against the law of Guyana; (b) to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other person or authority; and (c) to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or her or any other person or authority.”

 

The most recent matter the DPP discontinued was on Monday, December 12, 2022, when she  discontinued the private criminal charges against three members of the Special Organised Crime Units (SOCU) who are accused of unlawfully detaining Attorney-at-Law,  Tamieka Clarke.

 

On October 28, the Lawyer was detained by SOCU Officers reportedly after she repeatedly advised her client who is being investigated by the agency, to not provide any answers to the questions being asked, and to remain silent.

 

Clarke through her Lawyer, Nigel Hughes had filed legal proceedings at the Demerara High Court seeking several reliefs along with $300,000 in damages.  The Lawyer had also filed two private criminal charges at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts against Superintendent Krishnadat Ramana, Sergeant Navranda Persaud and Sergeant Winston Singh.

 

The two charges that were filed are for the offences of Wrongful Restraint pursuant to Section 6 of the Kidnapping Act, Cap 10:05 and Wrongful Confinement, contrary to section 8 of the Kidnapping Act, Cap 10:05.

 

The DPP in a letter addressed to Magistrate Annette Singh, notified the Magistrate that she has discontinued both charges filed by Clarke’s Attorney.

 

In giving her reasons to discontinue the charges against the SOCU Officers, the DPP stated, “I have considered it and found that the issues of Wrongful Arrest and False Imprisonment arise. These are issues of Tort and Constitutional breaches which are civil actions.”

 

The DPP added that all issues which are included in the allegations will be addressed in the civil action that was filed against the State.

 

Notably, she stated too that the allegations made against the Officers who are all active serving members of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) was done in the course of their duties, adding that the Officers are protected by virtue of Section 14 of the Justice Protection Act Chapter 5:07.

 

As it relates to the charge that was filed under the Kidnapping Act Chapter 10:05, the DPP stated that, “the intent and purpose of Parliament in the Kidnapping Act Chapter 10:05 is to provide for the punishment for the offences of abduction, wrongful restraint and confinement for ransom and other related offences and for matters incidental thereto.”

 

She added that it is therefore her considered opinion that the facts alleged by the Lawyer, “do not fall within the scope, purport and intendment of the Kidnapping Act; therefore, the charges filed under this Act is an abuse of process.”

  

Back in September, Crime Chief Blanhum, got a case against him discontinued by the DPP. 

 

The day after a private criminal charge was filed against the Crime Chief by the Lawyer representing Detective Sergeant Dion Bascom, the DPP discontinued the charge.

 

The charge alleged that on August 17, 2022 at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters, Eve Leary, Georgetown, Blanhum used a computer system to transmit electronic data with intent to humiliate, harass or cause substantial emotional distress to Bascom.   Blanhum was slated to appear in court on September 21, 2022.

 

However, the following day, the DPP sent a letter to the Chief Magistrate, Ann McLennan informing her that the charge against the Crime Chief is to be discontinued. In order to discontinue the charge, the DPP exercised the powers conferred on her by Article 187 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.

  

In May, the DPP discontinued the charge against attorney-at-law Nirvan Singh, son of former Chancellor of the Judiciary, Carl Singh, who was charged for using racial slurs towards an Afro-Guyanese policewoman who was tasked with guarding his residence.

On Wednesday May 18, 2022, the charge was formally discontinued against Nirvan Singh. 

 

In April, he made his first court appearance in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan. It was alleged that Singh unlawfully excited and or attempted to excite racial hostility or ill-will against police constable Shawnette Bollers. 

 

Singh had pleaded not guilty to the charge, which stated that on March 20, 2022 at the corner of Middle and Cummings Streets, Georgetown, by means of words spoken by him in a public place, he willfully excited and or attempted to excite hostility and ill-will against Bollers on the ground of her race as an Afro-Guyanese by using words directed to her and published by him, to wit: “black monkey”, “monkey”, “black people have no purpose in life”, contrary to the provisions of Section 2 (1) Racial Hostility Act Cap 23:0).

Chief Magistrate McLennan had granted bail in the sum of $100,000 and ordered the lawyer not to make contact or cause anyone to make contact with Bollers. The matter was then adjourned.

However, on the following hearing, instead of the matter continuing, the magistrate informed the court that she received a letter from the DPP which stated that in exercise of the powers conferred on her by Article 187 (1) (c), “I hereby discontinue the charge in the above matter.”

As such, the matter against attorney-at-law Singh was discontinued.

---

---