Latest update March 29th, 2024 12:59 AM
Dec 09, 2014 News
The Women and Gender Equality Commission (WGEC) has recorded disappointment with the recent landmark
ruling of Chief Justice (Ag) Ian Chang. The ruling deemed paper committals under the Sexual Offences Amendment Act unconstitutional. This is the second decision of this kind.
The Chief Justice’s ruling stemmed from a successful challenge to the Act made by Attorney-at-Law Murseline Bacchus. The lawyer had challenged a Magistrate’s decision to commit his client to stand trial in the High Court under the Act.
Bacchus, on behalf of his client, had moved to the court for an order or rule nisi of certiorari directed to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Commissioner of Police and Magistrate Sherdel Isaacs-Marcus herself, to show cause why her decision to commit his client to stand trial for the offence of rape should not be quashed on the grounds that the committal is null, void, unlawful and unconstitutional.
In his petition, Bacchus had submitted that he was not permitted cross-examination of the witness whose statements were filed by the Prosecution, nor was his client permitted to give evidence or call any witness in the proceedings before he was committed.
After listening to arguments from all sides, on November 14, Chang ruled said that paper committals under the Sexual Offences Act are unlawful as the accused is given no opportunity to defend him or herself in the Magistrate’s Court which is a breach of one’s constitutional rights.
According to the Sexual Offences Act, no witnesses are required to attend the Magistrates’ court to give evidence and the Magistrate would make a verdict based on statements provided by the virtual complainant, investigating ranks along with complainant’s medical report and birth certificate.
However, Chang’s ruling noted that the Magistrate acted in violation of the Applicant’s rights under Article 144 (2) (d) and (e) when she disallowed cross-examination of the makers of prosecution witness statements tendered against the applicant
in the preliminary inquiry.
It goes on to say that an accused/defendant {d} shall be permitted to defend himself or herself before the court in person or by a legal representative of his or her own choice and {e} Shall be afforded facilities to examine in person or by his or her legal representative the witnesses called by the prosecution before the court and to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution.
These rights, Chang said, were violated. This ruling is, in fact, the second of time the Chief Justice has handed down such a decision. The first was in August 2012.
By way of public statement, the WGEC said it “once again” wished to express its disappointment and dismay at the recent challenge to the Sexual Offences Act.
The Commission said that under challenge by this ruling is a procedure which sought to lessen the number of times a victim is forced to relive the trauma of sexual assault.
“It is the second time the Constitutionality of the procedure of paper committals under the Sexual Offences Act is being challenged in the High Court since the Sexual Offences Act came into effect in 2010.”
It explained that paper committals are part and parcel of this new law and added that the “Stamp It Out” campaign that engaged Guyana’s population and ushered in the modern Sexual Offences Act was a milestone for legislation on rape.
Guyana, the Commission pointed out, has been lauded regionally and internationally for this law and its provisions.
“Women in Guyana who have been sexually assaulted face numerous impediments on the pathway to accessing justice. The Sexual Offences Act improved the process. This was a piece of legislation that was worked on by a wide cross-section of society including activists, advocates, attorneys and ordinary citizens. This hard won battle seems to be under threat once again.”
The commission affirmed the rights of women and men to be upheld under the Sexual Offences Act and added that it stands in solidarity with all those who defend these Constitutional rights.
Since the ruling, Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall moved to challenge Chang’s decision. On November 25, last, Nandlall filed an appeal to the decision and is also seeking a stay of execution of the judgment.
He is awaiting a date for fixture for a hearing by the Court of Appeal.
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 29, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – After a series of outstanding performances in 2023, Tianna Springer, dubbed the ‘wonder girl’, is eagerly gearing up to compete in this year’s...Kaieteur News – Good Friday in Guyana is not what it used to be. The day has lost much of its solemnity. The one day... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]