Magistrate Annette Singh has still not received directions from the High Court on how to proceed on the conviction of Samuel Hinds Jnr, who has been found guilty of beating his sister-in-law Tenza Lane and threatening her with a gun last year.
At yesterday’s hearing, the magistrate adjourned the matter to October 5th for reports on whether she will proceed to sentence or impose a fine on Hinds Jnr, or if she would remit the matter for hearing before the High Court.
Hinds Jnr, son of former prime minister Samuel Hinds, has since moved to the High Court through his attorneys Peter Hugh and Latchmie Rahamat in a bid to stay the Magistrate’s Court proceedings.
Hinds Jnr was found guilty by Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond. After conviction, his sentencing was set for February 20 this year pending the presentation of a probation report. However this has since been delayed for numerous reasons, including the removal of Magis-trate Chandan-Edmond.
Magistrate Singh was subsequently assigned the case and has requested direction from the High Court as to how to proceed on the conviction.
At a June 12th hearing, Magistrate Singh had said that if the application to the High Court for guidance was not processed by yesterday, she would have made a decision. However, yesterday she adjourned the matter instead.
There has been division over whether Magistrate Singh can proceed with sentencing.
The Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecu-tions (DPP) has advised that Hinds Jr be retried, while 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. 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.
Lawyers for Hinds Jr have argued that a retrial would violate the constitution, which stipulates 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.”
His lawyers have stated that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, as opposed to other laws.
Hugh stressed that his client wants the matter to come to an end and should not have to face a retrial.
In a notice of motion filed on July 2nd before the High Court, Hinds asked that the court stays any further prosecution and/or adjudication by the court of criminal charges against him.
Hinds advances in his motion that the undue and unreasonable delay by the state to complete his matters, through no fault of his, has operated to the detriment of his defence since certain of his witnesses are no longer available and/or willing and cannot be found.
He argues that to defend the charges against him in those circumstances would be “unfair, unreasonable, and in breach of the principles of fair hearing and an abuse of process.”
Another ground in his motion states that the evidence led before Magistrate Chandan-Edmond does not support the commission of any offence and that her decision was arbitrary, null, void and breached his fundamental rights under Article 144 of the constitution.
He further contends that if Magistrate Singh has to determine the charges against him and if she also proceeds to sentence him his fundamental right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time is likely to be further infringed.
It is the police’s case that Hinds Jnr had 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 Hinds, but was cleared after a trial.
