Perplexed? Puzzled? Bemused? Bewildered? Mesmerized?
All of the above, I suppose. You can appreciate that I love words of any language. I know quite a few. Like those in my first line, that tend to be related.
What am I going on about today? Well first, let me state two of my (now usual) “excuses”: this threatens to be a most brief offering today and (two) that’s partly because I know I am out of my depth in terms of the legal issue being broached.
However, I still attempt a view, because from feedback I normally receive, I do know that my working-class “ordinary” readers appreciate my simplified approach to otherwise complex issues. I am told that I make things “palatable”, “readable” for the man in the street and in the restaurants. So here goes.
Don’t even charge?
I was indeed surprised upon reading that our accused Commissioner of Police, through his expert, high-profile legal team, had succeeded in challenging the Director of Public Prosecutions to even advise that he be charged, based upon the allegations and the DPP’s conclusions.
Being “unlearned” in any law, I was truly bemused that there is such legal provision for the Public Prosecutor to be challenged even before anything gets to any Court of law. I live and learn. But I guess that I should not be puzzled, perplexed, bemused by our brand of “justice”. Indeed we’re not yet even at any justice. It’s the law, which I understand is developed to ensure that justice, which can befuddle ordinary minds. Justice is supposed to be served by the application of “the law”.
Up front, one thing is hereby recognized once again: You get the representation and the “justice” you can afford! And often the best goes with your status in society. Who would have revealed to ordinary me that, as in the Police Commissioner/DPP/Chief Justice extant matter, there is a legal provision whereby the DPP’s decision could be challenged at the earliest stage? However this one turns out, I doubt I would afford such “bright” defence!
Mind you, my doubts and confusion assailed me even before I read this past Monday’s SN feature by the Transparency Institute (Guyana Inc) dealing with `The curious case of prosecutorial discretion’.
So I appreciated the line in that piece which declared that “… at this point, laypersons must be thoroughly confused, and understandably so. Popular perception is that the police lay charges, and the courts determine guilt or innocence…” “Popular perception?” Is that not the procedure? At least for us, the poor and under-represented?
However, the Transparency Institute piece went on to elucidate that the Chief Justice did have a sparingly-used “jurisdiction” to review decisions to prosecute. Bravo for our Attorney-at-Law- Commissioner and his team. So far. The piece also discussed the British Privy Council position on such challenges, pointing out that that super High Court cautioned about those “highly exceptional” challenges to prosecution, finally pointing out that “the Criminal Law of the land should apply to all equally.” Huh?
“How they go free…”
The above is a theme I have explored in this column over the years. It’s about how judges and magistrates decide, or are often obliged to decide, to let the accused go free.
From the lower courts to our highest court of appeal, judicial reasons are often explained as to why even the obviously guilty must be set free – from lack of evidence to lapses by the trial judge or prosecution, etc. etc. (I even “descended” to once writing about “the supermarkets of justice.”)
For now, I’ll recommend for discussion a movie with Jamie Foxx named Law-Abiding Citizen. And I’ll wait expectantly on decisions relevant to two cases: Commissioner Henry Greene’s and one involving an accused in an insurance fraud case – a Frederick Sukhdeo, who has filed a constitutional motion to stop prosecution after a delayed, nearly–six year trial. Poor me…
Ponder…
1) These “religious” national holidays – those imposed by Forbes Burnham – have their place in our national life, I suppose.
They, demonstrate our efforts to understand and live “tolerance.” Still valid?
2) Can any law-abiding citizen or organization hire the National Convention Centre? As they do the National Cultural Centre?
3) Hello Blogger C A Griffith (Cousin). Your responses puzzled me a bit. Assist me a little more some time.
’Til next week!
(Comments? allanafenty@yahoo.com)
