Why was Eddie Hart ‘reprimanded’?

THE EDITOR: I was puzzled but not surprised to read in your newspaper today (21.5.04) that Mr Eddie Hart having been found guilty of assault by beating the Mayor of Chaguanas Mr Orlando Nagessar shortly before the General Elections of 2002, was found guilty, convicted, reprimanded and discharged. He was discharged under S71 of the Summary Offences Act so that his conviction will not be recorded against him. My puzzlement comes from the questions “Was that proper use of the Law?” or “Was that decision an abuse of the Law?” Your readers will decide.

First, as I understand it, the discretion given to a magistrate ought to be used sparingly in cases where for example, the defendant is a young person who having shown contrition and who asks for leniency especially on the ground that his future maybe adversely affected by recording of a conviction against him etc. Two weeks ago, I was present at the Chaguanas Magistrates’ Court where two school boys had been charged with narcotic offences at school in that Borough. In my presence and hearing one boy appeared with his father and an attorney-at-law. He pleaded guilty and said he was sorry and that he was misled by other boys at the school.

The Learned Senior Magistrate Mrs Nanette Forde-John accepted the plea and explanation and reprimanded and discharged the boy.
She did not make an order under S71 and I wondered why. Indeed the boy had given his age as 18 years thus it is possible that his conviction will not be recorded against him. But could such a discretion be judicially exercised in Mr Hart’s case? In the first place Mr Hart pleaded not guilty and retained Senior Counsel to appear in his defence.  Mr Nagessar was the subject of the most searching and demanding cross-examination and to his credit he maintained his calm composure throughout. After the close of the case, senior counsel, as he was paid to do addressed the court at length on all aspects of the evidence even including what one newspaper referred to as “the geography of the court” in an attempt to show that the defendant’s version of the events was to be preferred over the complainant’s version.

In other words it was a fight to the bitter end. In the end, however, the learned magistrate found Mr Hart guilty because as he said there was a mountain of evidence against him. Again, as he was paid to do senior counsel begged for leniency for his client. One wonders on what ground could such an application be made. In the event the learned magistrate reprimanded and discharged the defendant and because he is a public figure and that sort of thing, made her order under S71. To my mind such an order ought to be made where a defendant pleads guilty, shows remorse and contrition and throws himself at the mercy of the court.

None of those pre-requisites apply in Mr Hart’s case. And yet? By the way when I studied law in England the terms, “Reprimand” meant that the tribunal (magistrate or judge) would give a stern “talking” to the defendant letting him know the seriousness of this action and warning him that he must make good use of his “Discharge” so as to avoid having to come to court in future. Such a process hardly ever occurs in Trinidad. Mr Hart was surely not reprimanded.

ATTA KUJIFI
Attorney-at-Law