Though facing sentencing after being found guilty of threatening and beating his sister-in-law, Samuel Hinds Jnr received another stay yesterday when the prosecution secured an adjournment after indicating that it needed more time to seek further advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) as to how to proceed in the case.
Hinds Jnr, son of Prime Minster Samuel Hinds, was found guilty by Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond of beating his sister-in-law, Tenza Lane, with a cane and threatening her with a gun on February 27, last year, at his Lot 83 Duke Street, Kingston, home.
After Hinds Jnr’s conviction, Magistrate Chandan-Edmond had set February 20 for sentencing, pending the presentation of a probation report.
However sentencing on that date was deferred after the probation officer who was assigned to the matter was not present at the time to present the report. However, Hinds Jnr’s fate became unclear when it was later announced on the same the day that Magistrate Chandan-Edmond had been relieved of her duties.
The case was afterward assigned to Magistrate Annette Singh, who granted an adjournment on February 27th after the court was in receipt of a letter from the defendant’s attorney, Peter Hugh who appears in association with Latchmie Rahamat, requesting an adjournment.
The new date was then set as March 5, when Magistrate Singh ordered the prosecution to seek advice from the DPP.
At yesterday’s hearing, however, Prosecutor Renetta Bentham said that the prosecution was not in possession of the case jacket as it was “going through the channel of advice.”
According to the prosecutor, contact was made with the DPP’s Chambers and that advice is being sought in relation to the way forward and what the position of the prosecution should be.
Magistrate Singh said that from her research, the defendant has already been found guilty and so she would “now have to go ahead and sentence.”
She explained that, the “only way” she knew “a guilty verdict could be overturned is by appeal,” which she said she does not have the authority to hear.
Attorney Hugh, who was present at yesterday’s hearing, laid over two case laws to the court and indicated his intentions to make certain submissions.
The presiding magistrate, however, told both the prosecution and defence that they will make formal submissions on the next date, April 8th, by which time Bentham indicated, the prosecution expected to have received additional advice from the DPP. Magistrate Singh told Hugh that she was familiar with the cases which he laid over to the court, but did not think that they are applicable to his client’s matters. She, however, further noted that on April 8, the court will hear the necessary submissions from both sides, as regards what she disclosed her research had yielded.
Both Hinds and Lane were present at yesterday’s hearing.
It is the police’s case that Hinds Jnr had also called Lane a thief, threw her to the ground, stomped her in the face and dragged her by her hair around his house. The man had denied the charge.
Lane was also charged with assaulting the man but was cleared after a trial.
Chandan-Edmond was said to be discharged from duty due to absenteeism, but a statement from her attorney Nigel Hughes implied a link between her client’s dismissal and her presiding over the trial of the Prime Minister’s son, who she was due to sentence after finding him guilty.
The repeated absence of Hinds Jnr, saw Magistrate Chandan-Edmond deferring her ruling on his guilt for over eight months, during which nine adjournments were granted. His lawyer had said Hinds Jnr was unwell and was not aware that he needed to provide a medical to the court for his absence.
