DPP seeks removal of judge in Haresh Singh murder case

Sep 03, 2026 News

---

…alleges bias, as defence brands motion “despicable” and “malicious”

(Kaieteur News) – The State has formally applied for the recusal of High Court Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif from the criminal proceedings against four men accused in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana, sitting in the County of Berbice.

The application follows a controversial August 24 decision by Justice Chandra-Hanif to sever the trial of the first-named accused, Phillip Anderson, called “Rat man,” from his three co-accused: Joel Gittens, called “Bolo”; Charles Scott, called “Bucko”; and Glaston Henry, called “Gladwin Henry” or “Soldier man.”

In court documents filed by State Counsel Praneta Seeraj and Christopher Belfield from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the State contends that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there is a real possibility the judge has prejudged critical trial issues.

“The State makes this application acknowledging that recusal is not lightly sought and that disagreement with rulings is ordinarily pursued by way of recall or appeal,” the prosecution noted, adding that a combination of procedural irregularities, errors in law, judicial remarks, and directions encroaching upon prosecutorial discretion “cross the line from robust case management into the appearance of likelihood of bias.”

 Central to the State’s motion is the assertion that Justice Chandra-Hanif improperly weighed unadjudicated evidence before the trial had even commenced. The prosecution highlighted that in her August 24 ruling, the judge contrasted the alibi evidence of Patricia Henry and Claudeth Kurtzious, neither of whom has been cross-examined, with the assumed content of Anderson’s unadjudicated caution statement and interview.

The State argued that the judge erred in law by relying on the contents of Anderson’s caution statement to grant severance without first holding a voir dire to establish its admissibility, citing the precedent case The State v Dookeran (Vernon) et al (1966).

Furthermore, the State pointed to “highly prejudicial remarks” allegedly made by the judge when delivering her ruling, including an utterance that she was unable to hear any Demerara criminal matters due to the transfer of this case from the Berbice assizes. According to the prosecution, this statement inferred that the judge viewed the trial as an inconvenience.

The prosecution also raised concerns regarding strict filing deadlines imposed during Case Management Conferences (CMC). On the August 25 national holiday, counsel for Glaston Henry filed written submissions at 6:02 a.m., with the State ordered to respond the following day. Later that night at 11:37 p.m., counsel for Charles Scott filed submissions, with the State directed to respond by 9:00 a.m. the next morning. The prosecution argued these tight turnarounds severely prejudiced its right to a fair trial.

Additionally, the State took issue with comments made by the judge regarding the authority to present indictments. When informed that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decides which indictment is presented, Justice Chandra-Hanif reportedly asserted that the court holds that authority, adding, “The court will be very happy with this matter having a final resolution all the way because it has been a practice over the years that has caused some concern to the judiciary…” The prosecution contends these remarks contradict Section 95 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, Chapter 10:01, and suggest potential bias, particularly given that the CMC has ongoing for over three weeks without the trial commencing.

Citing the governing legal test for bias from Porter v Magill, as adopted by the Caribbean Court of Justice in Lesage v The Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd and reaffirmed in Minister of Home Affairs v Nazar Mohamed & Azruddin Mohamed, the State maintained that the cumulative effect of these actions creates an apprehension of pre-judgment.

The recusal application has sparked fierce pushback from the defence team. Kaieteur News understands that at a pre-trial hearing, defence attorneys rallied against the State’s motion, describing the filing as “contemptuous,” “despicable,” and a “malicious attempt” to launch an assault on the reputation of the court.

Legal firm, Hughes Fields and Stoby, also publicly weighed in on the matter, issuing a statement regarding the procedural propriety of the State’s motion.

“It is a well-established principle of law that the appropriate remedy for a party dissatisfied with a judicial ruling is to appeal that decision to a higher court not to challenge the impartiality of the presiding judge,” the firm stated. “Disagreement with a ruling, however strongly felt, does not in itself give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Perhaps a new day has come in Guyanese jurisprudence.”

Justice Chandra-Hanif will rule Friday on the application for her recusal.

---

• DPP, Haresh Singh, murder case, removal of judge

---