The Carvil Duncan acquittal tells a lot about the judicial system

Nov 05, 2016 Letters

Dear Editor,
The recently concluded Carvil Duncan case raises a lot of eyebrows and questions. People are wondering whether the collapse of the case really hinged on legal technicalities, negligence on the part of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP} and/ or the Police Legal Adviser to properly advise on the course of action to be followed in prosecuting the case, the use of an inexperienced police prosecutor in the case, or, other undisclosed factors, which combined together may have allowed Duncan to walk out of the court a free man.
The dismissal of the case on the grounds of insufficient evidence also calls into question the seriousness of the state to bring to justice wrong doers of the former regime. To my mind what is appalling is that the DPP, after having studied the case and recommended prosecution, failed to assign a Senior Counsel to prosecute the case. Given the low level of legal competence of most police prosecutors and, fully aware that the prosecutor would have been opposed by one of the country’s leading lawyers, it was an act of folly on the part of the authorities to identify that caliber of prosecutor to present the state’s case. That decision was nothing but an act of legal/judicial indiscretion which opened the authorities to the charge that it was designed to support a politically, well connected operative. For justice to prevail in high profile cases there is an urgent need for some form of oversight at the judicial level to ensure that such situations do not occur
Is Mr. Duncan guilty or not guilty of the offence he has been charged with? Reading the Magistrate’s legal justification for throwing out the case, the poorly prepared case of the prosecution was highlighted. Much of the short comings are elementary matters, for example, the presentation of photocopy documents unaccompanied by the originals for the purpose of validation.
As a lay person I am appalled to learn that the charge of Simple Larceny that was laid against Duncan and the evidence presented are contrary to Section 164 of the Criminal Law Offences Act Chapter 8.01. Are we, citizens of Guyana, to believe that the learned DPP is so unfamiliar with the law that she is incapable of determining what the legal interpretation of Simple Larceny?
The defense logic prevailed, “… Once the money is deposited in the bank it is no longer the property of the customer (whether depositor or account holder} but property of the bank.” – not GPL or the citizens of Guyana. In light of this legal logic- Can GPL expect reimbursement from Republic Bank?
The result of the Carvil Duncan case has so angered the masses that they are expecting the APNU+AFC government to instruct the Attorney General to file an appeal as quickly as possible against the court ruling.
Tacuma Ogunseye

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News