Latest update April 24th, 2024 12:51 AM
Dec 05, 2014 Letters
Dear Editor,
While legal officers in Guyana and the Eastern Caribbean are debating whether or not it is right for magistrates to commit accused persons to trial by merely looking at statements taken by police and decisions by grand juries in the United States. Two recent decisions where the juries decided not
to indict two white men in Ferguson and Staten Island sparked off demonstrations and protests in the United States stating that their decisions were biased and racially motivated.
During the past ten days there have been mounting protests clamouring for a change in the legal system stating that there were different laws for whites and blacks. The protests were throughout the United States forcing President Barak Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to make public statements; and even some Brits showed their protests in the streets of a few cities in the United Kingdom; I will try to look at the role of a magistrate in the Caribbean in dealing with a preliminary inquiry and that of a grand jury to determine whether or not an accused person should be indicted
and prosecuted for the offence he was arrested.
The law dealing with preliminary inquiry was amended to save judicial time – rather than a magistrate hearing testimony from witnesses at a preliminary inquiry (PI) where accused persons or lawyers appearing for them can cross examine the witnesses, the law has been amended thatinstead of a PI, the statements taken by the police from witnesses can be filed in the court and serve on the prosecution officer/counsel for the magistrate to make a determination whether or not to commit the accused persons to trial before a high court judge and a jury.
In the British legal system even if an accused person is committed to stand trial before a judge and jury the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) can still intervene and nolle prosequi the case and free the accused, The DPP also has the power to indict an accused person even if the magistrate committed the person to stand trial. In other words the DPP has full authority to determine if an accused person can be tried by a judge and jury.
In Guyana, one of its leading lawyers Murseline Bacchus challenged the constitutionality of the law which allows committal from statements stating that his client in a rape case or is attorney had the right to cross examine the witnesses at the PI and he was denied this because he could not have done so when he was committed to stand trial merely from statements. Chief Justice Ian Chang agreed with Bacchus.
Over in the United States a grand jury hearing is equivalent to a preliminiary inquiry where the jury has to decide whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the suspect. It is not a trial per se but an inquiry (similar to PI) where the grand jury is to establish whether or not a prima facie case has been made out to indict and prosecute the suspect(s). In my view the mistake made by the grand jury in both the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases is that the jury treated their function as that of a TRIAL instead of an INQUIRY. Their role was merely to ascertain if there was enough evidence for the suspects to go on trial and NOT evidence to convict- which is beyond all reasonable doubt.
Oscar Ramjeet
LISTEN HOW JAGDEO WILL MAKE ALL GUYANESE RICH!!!
Apr 24, 2024
Round 2 GFF Women’s League Division One Kaieteur Sports – The Guyana Police Force FC on Saturday last demolished Pakuri Jaguars FC with a 17 – 0 goal blitz at the Guyana Football...Kaieteur News – Just recently, the PPC determined that it does not have the authority to vitiate a contract which was... 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]