Table bill swiftly

However, while the Law Association has a specific role to play in the administration of legal affairs in this country, the Ministry of the Attorney General must also seek out independent legal advice and must ensure all consultation is done as swiftly as possible so as to table a bill in Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

The draft bill proposes the expansion of the existing jurisdiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). It would give the DPP the power to prefer a voluntary bill in instances where a presiding magistrate is unable to complete or continue a preliminary enquiry for any reason.

At the same time, the legal proposal also seeks to create a power for magistrates, allowing them to initiate a new preliminary enquiry or continue an existing enquiry in the interest of justice and with the consent of parties. Some are of the view that the current state of the law prevents a new magistrate from taking over where a previous magistrate left off.

It seems strange that these provisions have not existed before.

Beyond the Marcia Ayers-Caesar issue, it is not unforeseeable that a magistrate may for various reasons be unable to continue a matter midstream. The DPP should have the power to, in such a situation, review the matter and send it to the next stage of the legal process.

Or, alternatively, the matter should continue to have life before a new magistrate.

An example from history can help us understand why these provisions are necessary. During the imbroglio involving Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma and the then administration of Patrick Manning, the question of the conduct of the then Chief Magistrate, Sherman Mc Nicolls, arose in 2007.

Mc Nicolls accused Sharma of attempting to influence him.

But he later refused to testify in a criminal case brought against Sharma. He had cooperated with prosecutors right up to the morning when his testimony was due.

For his vacillation, Mc Nicolls was to be charged by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (under then acting chairman Selby Wooding QC).

However, a decision was reportedly taken to defer any disciplinary proceedings because there was concern over the impact such would have on an inquiry Mc Nicolls was then presiding over: the Piarco Airport Inquiry. That inquiry had been going on for five years (it would later become the longest inquiry of its kind in history).

The prospect of the Piarco Inquiry having to start again due to the possible removal of the Chief Magistrate was, it would seem, a major factor that affected JLSC deliberations at that time.

If another magistrate could have completed the matter – which involved testing the evidence to ensure it met the barest prima facie standard – or if the DPP had the power to send up the indictment, then the problem would never have arisen. The Attorney General’s current proposal, therefore, is an elegant solution.

It is essential, however, that independent legal advice be obtained.

While the Law Association can be trusted to be an impartial, professional body and will be more than qualified to give expert advice, it is important for the State to have as wide a pool of advice as possible.

The Ministry of the Attorney General must therefore seek further input from independent counsel. And it must do so expeditiously in order to table a solution to this problem which, as events in 2007 demonstrated, has existed for too long.