Murder accused challenges order rescinding his bail
Attorney-at-Law Basil Williams has on behalf of murder accused, Trion Sumner, filed an affidavit in support of a notice of a motion challenging the authority of Justice Diane Insanally to stay the order by Justice James Bovell-Drakes granting bail to Sumner.
The attorney, on behalf of his client, is charging that Justice Insanally had no jurisdiction to make the conservatory order as well as to refuse Counsel for Sumner a hearing before making the order. Sumner, through his attorney is also challenging the role the Director of Public Prosecution played, adding that there were no grounds for the action.
In the affidavit it is pointed out that the presiding Judge who is seised (having possession of) with a list of cases for trial offences instituted by the DPP is the sole authority in that court to ensure that a citizen does not languish in jail.
It is also charged that a citizen against whom the DPP has instituted a criminal charge should not have to incur financial expense to get the DPP to discharge her constitutional duty, to afford the citizen a speedy trial in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of Guyana.
The affidavit insists that Justice Bovell-Drakes acted competently and the allegation of bias by the Judge is without foundation in law.
In the signed affidavit, Sumner states that he is advised and believes that the DPP is not entitled to the orders being sought against him and more so it is misconceived and should be dismissed.
In January, Justice Diana Insanally granted a Conservatory Order suspending the execution of the order which Justice James Bovell-Drakes granted to have Sumner be placed on bail. The motion to nullify the order by Justice Drakes described his order as unlawful, unconstitutional and in breach of the Criminal Law Procedure Act.
The Judge had granted murder accused, Trion Sumner, bail in the sum of $300,000.
Williams who was representing Sumner at the time of that ruling had said that he was not given notice about the matter, and only heard through the “grapevine” that the matter was going on. The lawyer said that he asked the Judge to be present and also for the accused to be present, since the matter concerned him.
However, the application for the accused to be present was denied since according to Williams, attorney at law Anil Nandlall objected and said that it was an ex-parte case.
The Judge subsequently ruled in favour of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Williams said that the order would continue to make his client be imprisoned, and his constitutional rights trampled upon. The lawyer further noted that “Justice Insanally had no jurisdiction in the matter since no judge can sit on a rule of another judge.”
Williams also stated that various forces are to be blamed for his client’s incarceration. According to Williams, a senior High Court official had the document which was stating that the family had secured the surety so that Sumner could be bailed, but refused to forward it to the Judge.
The document was only forwarded when the Judge granted the stay in favour of the DPP. Moreover, Williams says that the order which was granted was unlawful and it affects the order which Justice Bovell-Drakes ordered.