Magistrate Annette Singh has decided to seek the guidance of the High Court as to how to proceed in the matters against Samuel Hinds Jr, who was facing sentencing after being found guilty of beating his sister-in-law.
Magistrate Singh had set yesterday’s hearing for decision as to whether she would have proceeded to impose sentence on Hinds Jr or whether the court would have commenced a retrial, as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had advised the prosecution.
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 27th, last year, at his Lot 83 Duke Street, Kingston, home.
After Hinds Jr’s conviction, Magistrate Chandan-Edmond had set February 20th for sentencing, pending the presentation of a probation report.
On that date, however, sentencing was deferred due to the absence of the probation officer. Hinds Jr’s fate then 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 Singh.
The magistrate said yesterday that after examining the law, she has found no way that she can “go forward, or backward.”
Resultantly, she announced that she will remit the matter to the High Court for guidance as to the way forward.
Attorney Latchmie Rahamat, who represents Hinds Jr in association with attorney Peter Hugh, was present yesterday and reiterated that her client should not be subjected to a retrial.
Counsel pointed out that the constitution provides that a person should not be tried twice for the same offence, having already been tried and convicted.
Article 144 (5) of the Constitution 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.”
Rahamat argued that it is the constitution which is the supreme law of the land, as opposed to other laws, and she said by its provisions her client ought not to be tried again.
She asked that the matter be brought to an end since her client has already been convicted.
Magistrate Singh, however, informed that by next week she intends to make the application to the High Court for guidance.
Meanwhile, the probation report on Hinds Jr was taken to court yesterday by the probation officer.
Magistrate Singh, however, said she preferred to await directions from the High Court before determining whether the report should be presented.
After a request from Rahamat, Magistrate Singh said she had made a note of the report being prepared and taken to court.
The probation officer was then informed by the court that she would be contacted if the report is needed.
After estimating the length of time the matter is likely to be before the High Court, Magistrate Singh granted an adjournment until May 22nd for reports on whatever the Supreme Court would have ordered.
Magistrate Singh had initially said that she would not have given the matter an adjourned date, but would have relied on summons to be sent to the parties involved, informing of when they would have been required to attend court, once the High Court was finished with the matter.
Rahamat, however, indicated that since her client is an interested party to the proceedings, the defence would prefer being present to know the status.
It was at his point that the magistrate then estimated and granted the adjournment until May 22nd.
Hinds Jr was present at court yesterday but Lane was not.
The Chambers of the DPP last week said the law does not allow for Hinds to be sentenced by a magistrate who did not conduct the trial that led to his conviction.
In a statement, the DPP’s Chambers said the decision to recommend a retrial was based on Section 35 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act. “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 said.
