Dear Editor,
This week has seen three events which I consider will cause our justice system to be seen in an opaque way and should be commented upon. The first was the observation of the Honorable Attorney-General Anil Nandlall in his comments at the function to introduce the Second Edition of the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officers. The Attorney-General among his remarks bemoaned the practice of some judges in not complying with their judicial duties in not delivering their decisions within a six month period as is required under legislation that was passed some years ago.
The Code of Ethics at Chapter V1 which is entitled – Compliance and Diligence at Paragraph 6.6 state as follows – A judicial officer shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved judgments with punctuality, reasonable promptness and with due regard to statutory obligations. I wish to adopt what the learned Attorney-General said about the non-compliance of some judges in not delivering their judgments within six months. I would say that from my practice and from what my other colleagues at the Bar tell me that this delinquency is not in some judges but most judges. A few stick within the deadline and I can say without any fear of rebuttal that there are some judgments pending for years. The malaise is not only in the non-delivery of judgments but in many judges failing to write their decisions after an appeal was filed. This sad state of affairs brings the judiciary into disrepute and I ask that it be rectified and judges put themselves in order. I appeared in an appeal for a Respondent and this matter has not been heard by the Court of Appeal for over 15 years despite my writing several letters to the then Chancellors. My client died some years ago without enjoying the benefits of his judgment and I hope that his estate will benefit. But when?
I would suggest that the Chancellor request from each judge the number and names of all decisions that have been pending for over three months. This list should be transmitted to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to ensure its accuracy, that the files are with the respective judges and for there to be follow-ups to monitor the delivery of the judgments. The list should also be transmitted to the Bar Council so that the members of the Bar can check to ensure that none of their matters fall between the cracks. The duty is on the Chancellor of the Judiciary to ensure compliance!
The second event was the upholding of a no case submission by Justice Barlow in a matter before her where the person before her was charged for murder. The Prosecution conceded that there was no evidence against the accused person. The other accused had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentence. When a person is charged for an indictable offence such as murder, there is a preliminary enquiry which is conducted by a magistrate. After all the evidence is taken, the magistrate will commit the accused person for trial at the High Court if a prima facie case had been made out by the prosecution. If not then, the accused person is to be discharged.
There is a two tier process before an accused actually appears before a judge to face trial. The first, as stated earlier, is the preliminary enquiry and the second tier is when the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions examines the evidence in the committal to ensure that a case was made out and to also see whether other indictments should be laid against the accused in light of the evidence. There was a total failure in both of the processes as there was absolutely no evidence against the accused in the matter under discussion. As a consequence, the accused in this case spent five years being incarcerated for an offence in which there was no evidence against him. He will get no apology, his life was shattered, and he was dismissed from the Police Force and most of all he will not be compensated by the State for the wrong that was done to him. Unfortunately, he is not the first to have had this injustice done to and I dare say that there may be more persons awaiting trial in which there is no evidence against them. This cannot continue to happen. Madam DPP, you have to do better!
The third event was as regards the appearance of former Assistant Commissioner of Police Paul Slowe at the Georgetown Magistrates Court on Friday, 15th October, 2021 to answer charges. His matters had been called some time ago but he was out of Guyana on duty for the West Indies Cricket Board. He was not hiding or evading arrest and we all knew where he was. No arrest warrant was issued by any Magistrate for his arrest. Paul Slowe returned to Guyana legally through the Cheddie Jagan International Airport and announced that he would be attending court as summoned. He came on his own volition and entered the compound of the Georgetown Magistrates Court with the intention to attend Court 3 and to present himself to the Magistrate in answer to the charges. What happened next was circulated virtually in the social media. It was shameful and utterly disgraceful. It indeed lowered the esteem in the eyes of the Guyanese public and more so in my eyes, the image of the Guyana Police Force. Four police officers surrounded Paul Slowe and purported to arrest him. They wanted to take him into the Enquiries Office, put him in the lockups, to handcuff him and then escort him in the public to the Magistrate.
Much to his credit Paul Slowe refused to be cowed by this unacceptable behavior of these police officers. One was actually holding onto his shirt and trousers as if he wanted to escape or was a person of an unsavory character. I could not believe what I was seeing. Here an Assistant Commissioner of Police who served the Force with distinction and who when he retired was given a farewell parade of honor was being treated with such disdain and lack of courtesy. Clearly these four police officers were acting under instructions from a superior – was it from within the Police Force or elsewhere? One has to ask was this necessary? Was this political? What was to be proved? Did Paul Slowe tread on a police officer who now has power and wanted to get back at him? Paul Slowe held his ground and when his attorneys-at-law appeared good sense prevailed. I wish to condemn what was done to Paul Slowe as there was no justification and only will cause the reputation of the Guyana Police Force to again come under the microscope in an unflattering light.
Sincerely,
K.A. Juman-Yassin S.C.
