-matter adjourned to February 21st
Following the Guyana Court of Appeal (CoA) decision to dismiss an appeal by him in the ‘law reports case’, former Attorney General Anil Nandlall yesterday informed Magistrate Fabayo Azore that he will be challenging the CoA decision at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
“I will not stop until I have exhausted all my constitutional rights,” Nandlall informed the court during a hearing at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court before adding that the appeal is against his being called upon to lead a defence in the matter and if he proceeds at the magistrate’s court he will be unable to go to the CCJ.
He added that his two lead lawyers, one of whom is Glen Hanoman, were not available on yesterday’s date to assist him with his defence in any case. He made further arguments for the matter to be adjourned until the ruling of the CCJ and promised that if the CCJ dismisses the appeal he will be prepared to lead his defence.
Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU) prosecutor, Patrice Henry, advised Nandlall that if he wants the matter to be adjourned until the CCJ makes a decision, he should apply for a stay. Nandlall responded that he would need six weeks to get a stay. Further, he reported that there is already an application before the Court of Appeal which is set for the 28th, January, 2020.
Magistrate Azore told Nandlall that at this stage she is only interested in what happens on January 28th and adjourned the matter until 21st February, 2020.
Nandlall was charged regarding his possession of $2 million in law reports, and a trial before the magistrate’s court ensued. After the State had closed its case, Nandlall’s attorneys-at-law had submitted that there was no case to answer. Magistrate Azore, however, finding that a prima facie case was made out, overruled the submission, and called on Nandlall to lead his defence.
Nandlall then applied for judicial review of Magistrate Azore’s decision on the basis that she was wrong to find that a prima facie case existed, given that the charge against him, “Larceny by a Bailee contrary to Section 165 of the Criminal Law Offences Act, Chapter 8:01” is allegedly not known to the Laws of Guyana, and that her decision to call on him to lead his defence in those circumstances thus violated his rights guaranteed by Articles 40, 144(4) and 149(d) of the Constitution of Guyana.
In giving her decision, however, Chief Justice Roxane George found that while the court was vested with jurisdiction to intervene at the stage of a no-case submission in a summary trial, the jurisdiction should only be exercised in “limited and extreme circumstances”, which circumstances, she said, did not exist in Nandlall’s case.
In delivering the CoA’s decision on the appeal of Justice George’s decision, Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards had said the question before the magistrate’s court was whether a prima facie case had been made out by the State. She explained that a judicial review is available in the event of unlawfulness in making the decision, while an appeal would consider whether, on the merits of the case, the decision is wrong or right.
In the circumstances, the Chancellor noted that the magistrate’s decision to overrule the submission of no case to answer, and the call on Nandlall’s counsel to lead his defence, was not unlawful as she is permitted by law to do so, and it is part of the trial process.
