Dear Editor,
Ronald Samaroo was remanded to prison for 21 days pending sentence on an indecent language charge on the 5th February at Suddie magistrate’s court. He will come up for sentencing on the 26th February, 2007.
From my knowledge of the law, a remand order cannot be made for such an offence and it was wrong to do so. Worse still, the Magistrate acted ultra vires as even in cases where a remand order becomes necessary, it cannot be for as long as 21 days.
Justice is usually tempered with mercy but this was not done to the defendant who on the advice of his lawyer pleaded guilty to the offence as a first offender at age 52. All the mitigating factors put forward by the lawyer such as the defendant not having wasted the court’s time and being remorseful were rejected.
Yours faithfully,
(name and address provided)
Editor’s note
We sent a copy of this letter to Magistrate Maxwell Edwards for his comments and received the following response:
“My gratitude to you for your journalistic decency in affording me the opportunity to reply with my side of the story.
I apprehend some ulterior motive behind that letter – mischief is afoot. Were it not so, I would have contented myself with this short rejoinder – “Courts are content to leave to public opinion attacks or comments derogatory or scandalous to them” (Lord Denning’s ‘The Due Process of Law’ at p.33). Silence is not an option when one is confronted with deception, lies and half truths calculated to do mischief.
First, I challenge the letter writer to be daring enough to send me his/her authoritative, reasoned and considered opinion as to why I was “wrong” and “acted ultra vires.” He/she might wish to refer to sections 36 and 38 (as amended by Act 13/98) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act Cap 10:02 and consider the issue of interpretation whether a convicted person who is imprisonable, for a period not exceeding 42 days, in default of payment of a fine (in Mr Samaroo’s case $7,000 to $15,000) might not be remandable pending sentence albeit his imprisonability is contingent upon non-payment of the fine.
Secondly, circumstances beyond my control contrived to cause Mr Samaroo to be remanded for 21 days. Here is how it happened: when he was remanded on the 5th pending sentence, the 26th was the earliest adjourned date on which I was next presiding at Suddie Magistrate’s Court (SMC). It is not a daily court. As of Wednesday 7th to Friday 23rd assignments at the Wakenaam, Leguan and Mabaruma Magistrate’s courts made it practically impossible for Mr Samaroo to reappear before me at SMC prior to Monday 26th for his sentence.
Third, Mr Samaroo is no paragon of virtue. As to the assertion of him being “remorseful” and a “first offender”. – lies, damn lies. What remorse! How remorseful can he have been when in the Magistrate’s absence he had abused the security guard and referred to the magistrate in the most vulgar words (as admitted when he pleaded guilty) over some false allegation that the magistrate’s goats (I have 5 heads) had gone into his yard and damaged his “agricultural crops” (what agricultural crops? He is my eastern neighbour; he has a billiards table clean yard with some 10 bearing coconut trees, bamboo tree and some permanent fruit trees like mango – no cash crops); he is charged for that indecent language; is put by the magistrate on relatively (yet affordable) substantial bail of $20,000.00; he is to appear for his trial on 5th February and on the 4th February when the magistrate has returned to the Essequibo residence, Mr Samaroo renews his vulgarity (with such venom that his wife has to rebuke him on at least three occasions) for the reason (as he put it) of letting “the F
