Appeal Court overrules ex-CJ’s judgment

Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma yesterday overruled a judgment of former Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide. In doing so, Sharma said the court cannot perpetuate inaccuracies and it is duty bound to correct itself. He then  overruled de la Bastide’s judgment of 2000 in the matter of Snaggs v Ramdeo. CJ Sharma’s judgment will bring to finality the issue of a magistrate’s power in passing consecutive sentences. The case involved a prisoner who was released in a habeas corpus ruling. The court, led by CJ Sharma,  included Justice Lionel Jones and Justice Stanley John, who made it clear that the three-year limit referred to in section 72 of the Summary Courts Act does not fetter a magistrate in ordering a prisoner to serve consecutive terms of sentences when being imposed on the same person on different occasions.

The Act in part says: “...so that where two or more sentences passed by a Summary Court are ordered to run consecutively, the aggregate term of imprisonment shall not exceed three years...” This piece of legislation had been causing much debate in courts in recent years, and was first dealt with in the judgment of former CJ  de la Bastide in Snaggs v Ramdeo and about a year later in Bernard v Kennedy. In these matters, the Court of Appeal’s ruling confined the magistrate’s power to three years in ordering consecutive sentences. However, in the current appeal brought by the Attorney General against a decision of Justice Mira Dean-Armorer,  in the matter of Rodney Teeluck, the appellate court was asked to determine whether the limit of the aggregate term of imprisonment applies exclusively to consecutive sentences imposed by a summary court on the same occasion or extends to consecutive sentences imposed by the summary court (either the same or different summary courts) on different occasions.
Arguing the  appeal on behalf of the AG were attorneys Fyard Hosein SC and  F Fariaz, instructed by K Douglas. Dana Seetahal and Ricky Rahim represented Teeluck.

In Bernard v Kennedy, five sentences were imposed to run consecutively on the same occasion. The aggregate sentence was 21 years and eight months. On appeal, de la Bastide held that “the magistrate had no power in law to order these sentences to run consecutively. “The power contained in section 72 allowing a magistrate to order consecutive sentences is subject to the limit of three years imprisonment.” In Snaggs v Ramdeo, the appellant was sentenced to a term of five years consecutive to the sentence of six years which he was currently serving. These sentences were imposed on different occasions. The court varied the five-year sentence to commence on the day it was imposed. De la Bastide said: “That sentence ought not to have been made to run consecutively following the earlier sentence, but should run from the date it was imposed.” In the present judgment, CJ Sharma wrote: “On the other hand, there is the more restrictive interpretation which suggests that the Section 72 limit applies only when the two sentences were imposed on the same occasion, and not when the second sentence was imposed subsequently to that currently being served.”

Sharma noted that these interpretations were applied in the English (House of Lords) cases of Forrest v Brighton, Justice Hamilton v Maylebourne Magistrates’ Court and R V Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate for South Westminster, ex parte Green, which were not available at the time of the de la Bastide judgments. He also noted that although Justice Dean-Armorer was aware of the House of  Lords rulings as limiting the aggregate sentence only when the consecutive sentence was imposed on the same occasion, she was nevertheless bound by the ruling in Snaggs v Ramdeo. She quashed the three year sentence imposed on Teeluck by Magistrate Kwasi Bekoe on October 5, 1999. That sentence was to run consecutively with another term of sentence imposed on him by Magistrate Annette Mc Kenzie on July 7, 1999. Mc Kenzie had sentenced Teeluck to 180 days plus two three-year sentences, which were all to run consecutively, totalling six years plus 180 days.

CJ Sharma, in his 13-page judgment, said: “This court recognises the need for finality and certainty in the law. More importantly though, this court recognises that it cannot perpetuate inaccuracies and it is duty-bound to correct itself. “In the circumstances, the decision in Snaggs v Ramdeo was wrong. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the trial judge was wrong in the decision to which she came, and Snaggs v Ramdeo is therefore overruled. The appeal is allowed. This decision, however, does not in any way reverse the order of the trial judge releasing the respondent (Teeluck) from custody. The terms of Section 8 (I) of the Habeas Corpus (Amendment) Act 1996 are clear.” Last month, this Act was amended and passed in Parliament, increasing the three year limit to ten years.