The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has advised that Samuel Hinds Jr be retried, though he was facing sentencing after being found guilty of beating his sister-in-law and the presiding magistrate has now set April 17 for a decision on whether the matter will be tried again or sentence passed.
Hinds Jr, 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 Jr’s conviction, Magistrate Chandan-Edmond had set February 20 for sentencing, pending the presentation of a probation report.
On that date however, sentencing was deferred after the probation officer who was assigned to the matter was not present at the time to present the report. Hinds Jr’s fate however became unclear when it was later announced on the same day that Magistrate Chandan-Edmond had been relieved of her duties.
The case was afterward assigned to Magistrate Annette Singh.
At a hearing before Magistrate Singh on March 19, Hinds Jr received another stay when the prosecution secured an adjournment after indicating that it needed more time to seek further advice from the DPP, as to how to proceed in the case.
At yesterday’s hearing, however, Hinds Jr received yet another stay, after Magistrate Singh further adjourned the matter to rule on whether the court will grant the prosecution a retrial; or proceed to sentence.
When the case was called yesterday for report, Prosecutor Renetta Bentham explained that the DPP has advised that the matters be retried as they are now before another magistrate.
Defence attorney Peter Hugh however argued that it would be unfair for his client to be tried twice for the same offences; adding that his client just wants the matters to come to an end.
In her submissions to the court, Bentham explained that the DPP has advised that on the facts of the case, the issue is whether the guilty verdict of the previous magistrate, represents a final adjudication in the matter.
She said that the legal opinion according to Section 35 (1) and (2) of the Summary Jurisdiction Procedure Act, Cap 10:02 refers to the word ‘decision,” in dealing with orders and matters where the magistrate is no longer in the magisterial district.
She said that moreover, the word “decision” is interpreted in the courts by case law (which she cited), “to mean a final adjudication which includes a verdict and sentence.”
The prosecutor submitted that since “there is no sentence before the departure of the magistrate, the mere verdict cannot be deemed as a final adjudication of the matter.”
Bentham said that based on the law, the new presiding magistrate may not sentence the defendant; consequent to another magistrate’s hearing of evidence.
The prosecutor said that a magistrate has to hear the evidence, make a decision; as well as pass a sentence.
Hugh however strongly contended that his client should not be tried again, since it contravenes the legal principle, “that a man ought not to be tried twice for the same offence.”
Counsel said that his client has pleaded not guilty to the charges and was convicted at the conclusion of a trial in which he led a defence, after being called upon to so do.
Hugh stressed that his client wants the matters to come to an end and should not have to face a retrial.
Magistrate Singh then adjourned the case to April 17 for a decision on whether the court will proceed with sentencing or conduct a retrial.
The magistrate told both sides to be prepared on that date for whatever the eventuality; and informed the prosecution to have its witnesses present, should the need arise.
Hinds Jr was present at yesterday’s hearing but the virtual complainant was not. The prosecutor asked the court to excuse her absence, stating that she had an emergency to attend to.
At the March 19 hearing, Magistrate Singh had said that from her research, the defendant had 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.
She had then granted yesterday’s date to hear the submissions from both the prosecution and defence, regarding what she disclosed her research had yielded and also to hear the advice sought by the former, from the DPP.
It is the police’s case that Hinds Jr 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 have been 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 Jr was unwell and was not aware that he needed to provide a medical to the court for his absence.
