Magistrate needs time to make ruling on explosives

IN SPITE of attempts by defence attorneys Douglas Mendes SC, Stuart Young and Ian Roach to have the sale of explosives trial involving their clients, Susan Chang and Willie Chang completed by January 1, 2004, Magistrate David Harris yesterday adjourned the matter to January 12 because he needed more time before he could make a ruling. Susan, 54, and her son Willie, 25, both of Carenage, were arrested on December 18 following a city-wide raid by officers of the Firearm Interdiction Unit. They were subsequently charged by PC Carter Francis for selling fireworks without a licence. 

Young made one last attempt to convince Harris that it was within his (Harris’) jurisdiction to rule on the abuse of process submission that the defence team had made.  He said the licence was legitimate based on the fact that it was a “premises licence and not a dealer licence.”  If it was deemed not legitimate, he said, Harris should then dismiss the charge based on abuse of process because the police were instrumental in granting the licences.  In addition, he said, Willie should be discharged since he was not the owner of the business. State attorney Nigel Pilgrim, however, argued that it could not be a case of abuse of process because the police were responsible for inspecting the premises and not issuing licences.  He said the licence could not be legitimate because the Explosives Act stated that the retailer, and not the premises, was supposed to be licenced.  In addition, Pilgrim said “licenced premises” was shorthand for “premises of a licenced retailer.”   In response to Young’s suggestion that Willie be discharged, Pilgrim said Willie was “culpable” because he had stated in open court that he had been in  charge of the sale of the explosives.

Young then contended that although the licences were granted by the magistracy, the police were required to give recommendations after the premises were inspected.  That was how it had been for the past six years, he said, and if the licences were not now considered legitimate, then everyone involved should recognise that an error had been made and attempt to rectify it. He then told Harris that the burden of deciding whether or not the practice of the past six years was an abuse of process rested on the magistrate’s shoulder. Pilgrim agreed that an error had been made, not by the magistracy or the police, but by the Changs.  He said ignorance of the law was not an excuse for breaking the law. Harris listened to the submissions made by both sides and concluded, “These are not easy matters and this matter cannot be concluded before January 1.  I need time to do my best work,” and he adjourned the matter. At that point Young requested that proper arrangements be made for the storage of the explosives that had been confiscated by the police and was assured by police prosecutor Surrendath Sagramsingh that all precautions were being taken.