– accused further remanded
Oliver Hinckson remained imprisoned after his fourth appearance in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when the case was adjourned to await a High Court ruling. He is back in the High Court today before Chief Justice Ian Chang.
After heated arguments by Hinckson’s lawyers and the prosecutor, Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys further remanded the ex-army officer until April 11. Hinckson has been charged indictably with advocating the commission of a terrorist act and uttering seditious statements.
The magistrate had said on the previous occasion that bail would have been considered for Hinckson if the prosecution were not prepared to move forward with the matter, but if the prosecution were ready, the trial would begin; neither was the case yesterday.
The courtroom was packed with people keenly interested in the proceedings, and there was hardly any space for the press.
Police Prosecutor Robert Tyndall told the court that he was instructed that the accused had made applications in the High Court as regards the charges against him and as such, the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court should await the ruling of the higher court.
Attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes, appearing for Hinckson, asked the prosecutor to “excuse my ignorance” and extrapolate on the laws from which those conclusions were drawn.
Magistrate Gilhuys then intervened and said that moving ahead with the trial before the High Court ruled could be an exercise in futility especially if the court ruled that the charges against Hinckson were an infringement on his right to free speech as purported by the motion filed by Hinckson’s lawyer on his behalf. He said it would be better for the magistrate court to await the judgment of the learned judge before proceeding.
Hughes rebutted that the criminal charges against Hinckson were not moved to the High Court and as such, the Magistrate’s Court was the only court with the jurisdiction to hear the case. Hughes wanted to know what evidence the prosecution had to back its charges.
He said Hinckson was entitled to bail because the prosecution had indicated that it was incapable of moving forward with the trial and had to date, after numerous hearings, not presented any strong or lawful arguments as to why Hinckson should be refused bail. In addition, he said, Hinckson is a student of the University of Guyana and if he could not be granted his constitutional rights then he should be granted his liberty to pursue his rights to educate himself. Hughes said that the fact that the court was refusing bail with no solid arguments from the prosecution was “perverse,” and challenged the prosecution to say otherwise.
Tyndall told the court that he would rely on his previous submissions for the objections to bail.
Hughes then further said that the court was failing in its duty to protect Hinckson.
Hinckson’s other attorney Mark Waldron had pointed out earlier that the prosecution was showing no respect for the jurisdiction of the court.
He said that the magistrate had made one declaration at the last hearing; that bail would be considered for the accused if the prosecution were not prepared to move forward with the trial. Waldron reminded the magistrate that he should be impartial and unbiased.
The Hinckson case has been in the media spotlight since the charges were instituted against him on March 11. The charges came after statements he made at a press conference hosted by Mayor Hamilton Green at the City Hall. In the statement he had suggested discourse between the so-called insurgents, those with a grievance and those who have the capacity to assist in that negotiation, He had further said he and other ex-officers were prepared to venture into Buxton to assist in some kind of negotiation between the government and the disenchanted.
After he was refused bail in the Magistrate’s Court, Hinckson’s lawyers had moved to the High court, filing a motion and requesting a bail hearing. Justice Jainarayan Singh Jr, after granting the Attorney General seven days to reply to the motion filed by Hinckson’s lawyers, recused himself from matter saying that he could not in good conscience continue in the case since he has had conversations with Hinckson in the past.
The matter was sent back to the Chief Justice who will be hearing the matter today. Hinckson’s attorneys have expressed surprise and dismay that no magistrate or judge to date has shown interest in hearing the matter.
