The Government has filed an appeal against a decision handed down late last year by High Court Judge Navindra Singh, who has ruled that Senior Superintendent of Police Marcelene Washington, who is currently facing criminal prosecution, is no longer required to seek the Court’s permission whenever she wants to leave the country.
Washington who has been charged with several counts of conspiracy to commit a felony had moved to the High Court for permission to leave the jurisdiction for medical reasons, owing to her name being placed on a list of persons prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction without the Court allowing it.
In a ruling delivered on December 28th last, Justice Singh ruled that there was no written law in Guyana which authorizes the Guyana Police Force (GPF) to limit the movement of persons out of Guyana solely because they have been charged with an indictable offence, and placed on bail.
In fact, the Judge ruled that the only condition attached to the grant of bail is the future appearance of the person bailed; while stating that if the court granting bail determines that conditions, such as restricting a person’s movement out of the jurisdiction, are needed, those are conditions to be attached to the grant of bail.
The State’s position in its appeal filed by Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC earlier this month, is that the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act restricts persons charged with an indictable offence and who have been granted bail with surety from leaving the jurisdiction without the permission of the Court.
This restriction the AG argues, is contemplated, and permitted by Article 148 (3) of the Constitution and case law precedent by which he contends the Judge would have been bound to follow.
Among other things, the AG in seeking to set aside the ruling, argues that the decision of the Judge “is patently misconceived and erroneous in law;” stating in the main that he “erred and misdirected himself in law in failing to appreciate” that Washington “is a person who is restricted by the authority of law for the purpose of ensuring that she appears before a Court at a later date for trial” in accordance with Article 148 (3).
Further, Nandlall contends that the Judge erred by “failing to appreciate or ignoring” that the provisions of the Criminal Law Procedure Act create a restriction on Washington’s right to leave Guyana as a person charged with an indictable criminal offence and being granted bail with surety.
On this point the State’s position is that such a person “is lawfully prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the court unless permitted to do so with leave of a Court.”
The AG’s Notice of Appeal advances that the Judge erred and misdirected himself in his reliance on Section 11 of the Bail Act which he argues was not in operation at the time of the decision of the Court.
In his Notice of Motion seeking an early hearing of the appeal, the AG posits that the decision of the Judge “violates, and is in conflict with express provisions of the Constitution, established principles of law, and precedent.”
He advances too in a press release the need for an early hearing, arguing that Acting Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken, averred that the ruling “has deep and far-reaching ramifications for the rule of law and, in particular, the administration of criminal justice in Guyana.”
Nandlall according to the release said that Hicken in demonstration of that view, went on to explain that “In my position as Commissioner of Police (Ag.), I have knowledge that hundreds of persons charged with indictable offences and granted bail with sureties can now flee the jurisdiction with impunity, and certainly, without the supervisory role of the High Court.”
The AG is now hoping that the Guyana Court of Appeal would set aside, reverse, and/or vary Justice Singh’s ruling.
Washington’s position had been that the deprivation of her freedom of movement by the GPF is unconstitutional and a breach of her constitutional right as guaranteed in Article 148 of the Constitution.
Against this background, she sought an order compelling the Commissioner of Police to have her name removed from the blacklist at all ports of exit on the grounds that placing her name on such a list was among other things “capricious, malicious, unconstitutional and an abuse of power.”
The Court would later rule in her favour, awarding her costs in the sum of $150,000.
Justice Singh asserted that “it is clear that the names of persons charged with an indictable offence are placed on list, whether it is called a `blacklist’ or an `administrative list’ is wholly irrelevant.”
Moreover, he said it is also clear that by creating such a list the Guyana Police Force determined that the law authorises it to limit the movement of such persons solely because they have been charged with indictable offences.
“No such authority is reposed in the Guyana Police Force under any written law in Guyana,” the Judge said in his ruling; adding that the Respondents had clearly misdirected themselves with respect to their contention that Article 139 (1) of the Constitution restricts the Applicant’s right to travel pursuant to a bail order made by the Court.
This Article he said, “does not restrict the movement of an individual who has been granted bail by a Court of law.”
Section 11of the Bail Act he said, makes it very clear that conditions, including conditions restricting a bailed person’s ability to travel, “may be imposed by the Court granting bail.”
“Logically if such conditions are not imposed by the Court then they will not exist,” the Judge asserted; before going on to state that “the Guyana Police Force cannot restrict the movement of any person around or out of Guyana unless such restriction is provided for in the Laws of Guyana or is pursuant to an Order of Court.”
Background
Back in June of 2021, Washington, Police Finance Officer; was slapped with three charges of conspiracy to commit a felony and released on $250,000 bail.
The allegation against her is that she and others between November 2, 2020 and November 24, 2020 with intent to defraud, conspired with each other and other persons, while being officers employed by the Guyana Police Force, to falsify an account, being a feeding account in the sum of $1,152,000 in relation to meals purportedly provided by the Tactical Services Unit Mess to Officers and Inspectors who performed fixed point duty at the Tactical Services Unit between the period October 16 and October 31, 2020.
It is also alleged that she and others, with intent to defraud, conspired with each other and other persons while being officers employed by the Guyana Police Force to falsify an account, being a feeding account in the sum of $1,440,000 in relation to meals purportedly provided by the Felix Austin Police College Mess to ranks who performed fixed point duty at the Suicide Helpline between October 16, 2020 and October 31, 2020.
The third charge states that Washington and others, with intent to defraud, conspired with each other and other persons while being officers employed by the Guyana Police Force, to falsify an account, being a feeding account in the sum of $2,246,400 in relation to meals purportedly provided by the Felix Austin Police College Mess to ranks who performed fixed point duty at the Mounted Branch between October 16 and October 31, 2020.
The charges stemmed from a massive investigation being conducted by SOCU in relation to an over $300 million fraud allegedly committed at the Police Finance Office by several high-ranking officers of the Guyana Police Force.
