Dear Editor,
I refer to the feature appearing in the Sunday Stabroek of May 6, entitled ‘The CJ did not take the relevant articles of the Constitution into account when giving his ruling,‘ penned by Mr Ramon Gaskin.
In the article, Mr Gaskin has posited that Article 232 (8) of the Constitution precluded the CJ from hearing the application of the Commissioner of Police to block the charge of rape from being instituted against him.
Article 232 (8) states that “…no provision of this constitution that any person or authority shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority in the exercise of any functions shall be construed as precluding a court from exercising jurisdiction in relation to any question whether that person or authority has exercised those functions in accordance with the constitution or any other law.”
After he mentioned and quoted from Article 232 (8), Mr Gaskin went on to say, “in other words the Constitution is clear on the issue of the exercise of the functions of the DPP that are amenable to judicial review only in respect of two circumstances, viz, where the DPP has exercised her function in accordance with the Constitution, or in accordance with any other law.“
Now the constitution states that with regard to criminal offences, the principle of presumption of innocence applies. That is law. From a perusal of legal literature, there is agreement that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence. “A reasonable doubt is not based upon sympathy or prejudice; but is rather based on reason and common sense. It is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence” (Wikipedia)
Mr Greene made the application to block the charge of rape on the grounds that there was not enough evidence such that there was any reasonable prospect for a conviction. In other words, that there was not enough evidence to prove a charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt. That is what the CJ was asked to rule on.
It seems to me therefore, that Article 232 (8), in and of itself, did not preclude the CJ from hearing the Commissioner’s application.
Yours faithfully,
Mark Bender
