Latest update April 25th, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 06, 2009 News
Magistrate Yohhahnseh Cave has stated that the Director of Public Prosecutions has no supervisory role in what is an exclusive judicial function of the court with regards to the granting of adjournments.
The magistrate made the statement at the recommencement of the Preliminary Inquiry into the murders of Agriculture Minister Satydeow Sawh and three others at the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court yesterday.
He was referring to statements made by the DPP, Mrs Shalimar Ali-Hack, in response to his previously expressed concern over what he described as her attempt to influence the decision of the court.
The Magistrate had accused the DPP of telephoning him to seek to have him reconvene the Preliminary Inquiry to facilitate the testimony of the Minister’s brother Omprakash Sawh, after he had adjourned the matter to a date which was not convenient to the witness.
The witness has since left the jurisdiction and returned to his home in the United Kingdom in the midst of his cross-examination.
The DPP had insisted that she did not interfere in the matter and that her intervention was within the confines of the law.
“When the Director of Public Prosecutions intervenes in a criminal matter, the Director of Public Prosecutions is carrying out the constitutional function which the Director of Public Prosecutions is appointed to do. The Director of Public Prosecutions is therefore acting lawfully,” she said in her letter to this newspaper
However, the Magistrate said in a statement which was read in open court that the DPP’s only intervention in this regard is to apply for an adjournment or to oppose an application for one, which she must properly do in open court, and not by way of private and improper solicitation.
The Magistrate said that he would have preferred to have ventilated the issue at the end of the Preliminary Inquiry on the understanding that they did pose a risk of distraction during the time when he was making strenuous efforts to complete this matter.
But, according to Magistrate Cave, recent statements attributed to the Director of Public Prosecutions in this newspaper last Sunday have changed his original disposition in dealing with the issue, and have compelled him to deal with it now, since it is his considered view that there is immediate and considerable danger in failing to correct what he called grave distortions contained in many of the assertions attributed to the DPP, which have now become part of the public record.
“This issue would not have arisen, in my view, had the Director of Public Prosecutions not made an improper attempt to influence this court’s decision on the issue of its adjournment of this matter… by means of a private telephone call. On that occasion I was handed a cell phone by the Police Prosecutor then assigned to this matter in Chambers who declared that the DPP, Ms Ali-Hack, wanted to speak to me.”
According to Cave, on answering the telephone call, the DPP indicated that she was calling him regarding the witness Omprakash Sawh, a witness who she declared was scheduled to leave the country on the following day.
He said that he indicated then to the DPP that he was already aware of the witness’ travel arrangements since they had been discussed in open court, but he had informed the witness that he had to change his travel plans in order to accommodate the adjournment of the matter, since the attorney could not be available on account of having to attend another Court in Essequibo, and had not yet completed his cross-examination.
“She declared that she had been informed that the witness had already positively identified the accused, and there was no requirement to have the attorney present for the matter to continue. I indicated to the DPP at that time that it would be improper for me to bring the date of the matter forward, having already adjourned it in the presence of both parties,” the Magistrate explained.
Further, he indicated to the DPP that, while he agreed that there was no requirement for the attorney to be present at a Preliminary Inquiry, this situation was wholly different in that the accused was in this case represented by counsel, and the court had a legal obligation to allow the attorney a fair opportunity to present himself to court for the purpose of representing his client.
The court, having given the attorney an undertaking that the matter was adjourned to a later date, could not thereafter drag his client before the court the following day to continue the matter in the attorney’s absence, the magistrate declared.
He said that the Director of Public Prosecutions’ tone became angry at that stage.
“The DPP has wholly, and in my view dishonestly, misrepresented the content of that conversation, and suggested that I made statements during the course of that conversation that would tend to imply that I wanted to bring a premature end to these proceedings, or at the very least I had a certain predisposition to the evidence of anticipated prosecution witness and the quality of the prosecution’s case in general.”
Magistrate Cave said that the prosecution had up to that point called several witnesses in support of its case, none of which defence counsel had even bothered to cross-examine, since these witnesses appeared to contribute little to the gravamen of the charge made against the accused.
Additionally, the prosecution was seemingly encountering difficulty with getting witnesses to court and with its case management in general.
Cave said that, out of concern for the Court’s time and in an effort to expedite the matter, he advised the Police Prosecutor to seek the advice of the DPP on the matter before proceeding further.
He explained that it was only after the Police Prosecutor had expressed his reluctance to do so, given the sensitivity of the matter, that he took the decision to contact the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions directly with a view to having a review of the file.
“This was no secret communication. Before I did so, I indicated same in open court in the presence of both Defence Attorney and Prosecutor and a court room full of litigants and spectators who can attest to that fact. I indicated then that the reason I intended to contact the Office of the DPP to suggest a review of the file was out of concern for the manner in which the prosecution’s case had progressed thus far, and its impact on the Court’s schedule.
“I made clear on that occasion, and those present can attest to the fact that I said so, that I was unaware of the evidence the prosecution has to present, and that I had not read the police file. I also said on that occasion in open court that I could not anticipate what decision the DPP would arrive at after review, but that I felt a review was necessary in the circumstances with a view to deciding how and whether to proceed. These were the same sentiments expressed in my conversation with the DPP.
“I wish categorically to state that I never told the Director of Public Prosecutions that the witnesses were merely formal witnesses. It would have been impossible for me to have made that comment, being wholly ignorant of the contents of the witnesses’ statements. Those are contained in a file kept in the possession of the police and unavailable to the court except upon request. I never requested to read nor did I ever read the police file.
“I have always taken the position in this and other matters that what is in the police file is not the Court’s business, unless and until it is presented, or some issue arises fitting to be disclosed,” Magistrate Cave explained.
He stated that he had granted multiple adjournments in the matter, most of which have been at the behest of the Prosecution to accommodate the appearance of their witnesses, including the very witnesses the DPP asserted that he declared were merely formal and would be a waste of time and money to bring.
He added that he had even issued arrest warrants in this matter to compel the attendance of prosecution witnesses.
“How then is it to be implied that I sought to dissuade her from bringing vital witnesses?”
According to Cave, the granting or refusal of an adjournment lies squarely within the judicial discretion.
The DPP’s intervention in this regard, he said, is to apply for adjournment or to oppose an application for one, which she must properly do in open court, not by way of private and improper solicitation.
A leading legal mind who was present in court at the time told this newspaper that, in light of the growing controversy between the DPP and the Magistrate, the Magistrate may have to remove himself from the case.
However, the Magistrate had indicated that he would continue with the matter in which Buxtonian David Leander, called Biscuit, is charged for the murders, and will follow the “dictates of my conscience”.
Jagdeo giving Exxon 102 cent to collect 2 cent.
Apr 25, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – The French Diplomatic Office in Guyana, in collaboration with the Guyana Olympic Association and UNICEF, hosted an exhibition on Tuesday evening at the...Kaieteur News – Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, persists in offering... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... 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]