The ball is in Rickford Burke's court to show up and defend himself

The ball is in Rickford Burke’s court to show up and defend himself

Dec 28, 2023 Letters

Dear Editor,

The response by Opposition Member, Mr. Roysdale Forde, SC on the issue of a service of a summons on Rickford Burke (letter published 25th Dec, 2023) offers no solutions but seeks to confuse by raising ‘red herrings’. At common law, the Court would be unconcerned with how the service was done but more concerned on if it was done; and it was done.

The governing principle is to ensure a fair trial. The defendant is clearly now aware of the proceedings and if he chooses to still absent himself, he may find himself convicted in his absence. This would limit his right to ever raise a defence and would certainly affect his ability to challenge the evidence against him. His options for judicial review or appeal would also be significantly restricted. Arguments that he is in the USA and an American are irrelevant. He is before the Guyana courts for violating Guyana law. It is no secret that every country can investigate and prosecute breach of its laws. Much is being advanced that the proceedings are contrived or unfair and Mr. Burke would be well advised to advance those arguments for consideration in the Court and not only on social media.

Mr. Forde’s assertion is that it’s unlawful and void and is difficult to support having regard to established principles of common law regarding fair trials. It is undisputed that a fair trial is most likely when the defendant is aware of the charge, present and defending the charges. Mr. Burke is now aware of the charge(s) and where it is being held and what date. The ball is in his court to show up and defend himself. Secondly, in simple terms there is nothing to say a Magistrate cannot issue a summons for a defendant and definitely nothing to say a policeman cannot take the said summons overseas and have same served on the defendant.

Mr. Fords demands of me an authority to resolve the issue; but I remind him in the Ram v Scotland (election cases) it was advanced by me and others, without authority, that 33 was a majority of 65. Mr. Forde and his colleagues had numerous authorities against that mathematical fact. We all know how that ended. I remind him, common-sense and logic would always trump “authority”.

Yours faithfully,

Sanjeev Datadin

Mr. Roysdale Forde, Opposition Member, Rickford Burke, Sanjeev Datadin, SC

Latest News