–to allow for trial before magistrate
In yet another twist the Oliver Hinckson motion was withdrawn from the High Court yesterday to allow for the continuation of his case in the Magistrate’s Court before Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys.
The magistrate had ruled on Monday that Hinckson’s trial would not start until consideration of the motion before the High Court concluded.
Hinckson is charged indictably with advocating the commission of a terrorist act and uttering seditious statements. After he was charged and refused bail in the Magistrate’s Court, his lawyers had moved to the High Court, where they filed a motion seeking a declaration from the court that the statement he made on February 1 at a press conference at City Hall was not in contravention of any laws of Guyana, but consistent with his right to free speech in expressing concern over matters of national interest.The motion also sought a declaration that the detention of Hinckson for his utterances was unconstitutional and a breach of the fundamental protected right as guaranteed by the Constitution.
It sought damages in excess of $10,000,000 for breach of his right to free speech and expression of his thoughts, costs, interest and any other order the court saw as justifiable.
The lawyers had also requested a bail hearing.
Justice Jainarayan Singh Jr, to whom the case was assigned, after granting the Attorney General seven days to reply to the motion, recused himself saying that he could not in good conscience continue with the case since he had had conversations with Hinckson in the past. The matter was then sent back to Chief Justice Ian Chang.
Attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes told the Chief Justice yesterday that the matter had stalled in the Magistrate’s Court pending the ruling of the High Court. He then requested that the motion and bail application in the High Court be withdrawn so that the lower court would have “no further excuse” for not moving on with Hinckson’s trial.
After heated arguments in the Magistrate’s Court on Monday, Magistrate Gilhuys had said that trying Hinckson before the High Court had ruled could be an exercise in futility, especially if the court ruled in Hinckson’s favour.
He said it would be better to await the judgment of the learned judge before proceeding with the matter in the Magistrate’s Court.
This was the magistrate’s ruling after 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.
Hughes had asked the prosecutor to “excuse his ignorance” and extrapolate on the laws from which those conclusions were drawn. He had further stated that the prosecution was making “fabrications for their incompetence.”
When Hinckson had appeared in court on March 27, Magistrate Gilhuys had told the prosecution to be ready for the trial at the next hearing and had said that he would consider bail if the prosecution was not ready to start the trial. However neither was the case on Monday.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Chang said in court yesterday that contrary to what certain media reported, the Hinckson matter was never before Justice William Ramlal and he wished to make it clear that the High Court was not in any way “running from the matter”.
Since there are now no proceedings to await ruling in the High Court it is expected that Hinckson’s trial will begin on his next Magistrate’s Court date, April 11. (Melissa Charles)
