The Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) yesterday defended its intervention in the proceedings against Samuel Hinds Jr, whose sentencing for assault is currently in limbo, saying the law does not allow for him to be sentenced by a magistrate who did not conduct the trial that led to his conviction.
Before a sentence could be delivered for Hinds Jr, the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, trial magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond was sacked by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Her sacking prompted criticisms that it was a politically-motivated decision, and the DPP’s subsequent recommendation that a retrial be held also elicited similar concerns from the opposition coalition APNU+AFC.
However, in a statement issued yesterday in response to a Kaieteur News report on the criticism by the coalition, the DPP’s Chambers said the decision to recommend a retrial was based on Section 35 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act. Addressing the case, the statement said the facts of the case are that one magistrate heard the evidence in the trial and convicted the defendant but did not sentence him. “The issue in this case therefore is whether one magistrate can hold a trial, hearing the evidence and convicting the defendant and a different magistrate sentence the said defendant,” it noted.
Section 35 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act states:
“(1)The court shall at the conclusion of the hearing or within six weeks thereafter at a subsequent sitting give its decision in the case, either by dismissing the complaint or by making such order against the defendant as the case requires.
(2) Where before the court gives decision, the magistrate ceases to exercise jurisdiction in the magisterial district or to hold office it shall be lawful for him, within six weeks of the conclusion of the hearing, to lodge with the clerk of the court his written decision. The court shall read the decision at the earliest opportunity after notice to the parties and the decision when read, shall be deemed to be the decision of the court.”
“This section clearly states that the magistrate who hears the matter shall give the decision. This means that one magistrate cannot hear the matter and another give the decision. Decision has been interpreted by the Courts in judicial precedents to mean a final adjudication, which includes a verdict and a sentence,” the statement further said.
It was stressed that since there was no sentencing prior to the departure of the trial magistrate, the “mere verdict cannot be deemed a final adjudication of the matter; and most importantly another magistrate who did not hold the trial cannot
sentence the defendant. This is contrary to the law.”
The statement also emphasised that the DPP’s Chambers is an independent Office and all legal advice is given in accordance with the Laws of Guyana and the facts contained in police files received from the Guyana Police Force.
Stabroek News has been unable to ascertain whether Chandan-Edmond had a written decision prepared. She was awaiting the presentation of a probation report for sentencing. Although it was completed at the last hearing over which she had presided, the probation officer was not present in court to present her findings.
Persons in the legal fraternity have expressed a division as to how this case ought to be proceeded with. Hinds Jnr’s attorney, Peter Hugh, has argued that his client cannot be a victim of double jeopardy—meaning that he cannot be tried for the same offence after being convicted or acquitted.
This is made very clear in Article 144 (5) of the Constitution, which states: “No person who shows that he has been tried by a competent court for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for any other criminal offence of which he could have been convicted at the trial for that offence, save upon the order of a superior court in the course of appeal proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal.”
