Kamla says Clause 22 of the bill worse than Section 34

Under the infamous Section 34, “You would not have escaped murder on the grounds of delay,” but according to the current bill, a murderer could go free on grounds of delay, she said. Contributing to the debate on the new bill in the House of Representatives yesterday, Persad-Bissessar said, “Today we stand at 97 murder. We have 11 unclassified .

A murderer could have escape with this new bill.” Clause 22 exempts “blood crimes” and “a murderer could escape” the justice system, she said, due to a delay if the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) does not proffer an indictment against the accused within 12 months or such other period as an application may permit. The accused may apply to a judge for a discharge and the judge can discharge the accused having considered the reason for delay. “You have exempted all the blood crimes. I take a strong objection to that,” she said .

Section 34 had provided for an accused to apply to the court for a discharge for certain offences given delays and so on, she said, but delays did not apply to blood crimes .

“Blood crimes could never be discharged because of delay by whichever officer is determining a prima facie case, whether it was a master or a magistrate,” she said. Blood crimes listed in the the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act of 2011 and which were repealed, she suggested, be included in the current bill before the House of Representatives .

She listed among blood crimes: treason; offences against the person; murder; conspiring or soliciting to conspiring to murder; manslaughter; shooting or wounding; assault occasioning bodily harm; kidnapping; kidnapping for ransom; knowingly negotiating to obtain ransom; rape; grievous sexual assault; sexual intercourse with children under 18 years; drug trafficking; trafficking in dangerous drugs; possession of a dangerous drug; unlawful possession of a firearm; and attempts to commit offences, among others .

Meanwhile, bypassing the magistracy in a pre-trial and handing the cases to the Office of the DPP, she said, “is a fundamental breach of the separation of powers, and therefore could not stand, and should not stand.” What Government was attempting to do, she said, was not change the process, but to change the officer who will now oversee the process of preliminary inquiries. This amounted to trespass, which in the past in similar cases, were struck out by the courts .

She questioned whether the “safe powers” vested in the magistracy from before the Constitution came into effect, set out in the Summary Courts Act, the Preliminary (Indictable Offences Act) 12:01 could be taken away and vested in the Office of the DPP. “It is my respectful view,” she said, “you cannot.” The Attorney General, she said, may want to consider the freedom of the press contained in the 2017 bill which limits coverage to accommodate the movement to open justice .