Who say start over 53 cases?

The acting chief magistrate is also being asked to divulge whatever other instructions or advice she received regarding the future conduct of these cases.

The urgent requests were made by attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, on behalf of his client, a minor whose murder preliminary inquiry was affected by the appointment of Ayers-Caesar as a judge and her subsequent resignation.

In his letter dated June 21, Ramlogan pointed out to the acting chief magistrate that she herself was reported in the press as having said she received instructions to restart the cases from the beginning.

Earle-Caddle on June 1, when more than 40 of the cases came up for hearing before her, did not say from whom she received those instructions.

Ramlogan also quoted from a letter sent by attorney Ian Roach on behalf of Chief Justice Ivor Archie who admitted to having made an error when the Judiciary last month announced a consensus had been arrived at to restart all 53 cases.

Archie said “no such decision was made” at a meeting of stakeholders on May 24. Roach’s letter said the media release by the Judiciary’s Court Protocol and Information Manager Alicia Carter- Fisher on May 25, was “not properly worded as it should have been.” “The purpose of the meeting was simply to obtain the views of the persons in attendance, not to make a decision as to how the matters would or should be dealt with the relevant presiding magistrate.” Roach also indicated that “no further directives were issued to any judicial officer as to how they should deal with the matters which may come before them.” He also told Ramlogan that “no person or persons arrogated unto themselves the power to determine the future conduct” of his client’s case.

In his letter to Earle-Caddle, in which he has given her five days to respond, Ramlogan said, “This response has created grave doubt and intensified the confusion that surrounds the status and future conduct of my client’s PI. As you would no doubt appreciate, one would assume that the Honourable Chief Justice himself was the source of your instructions, which in turn arose out of a decision taken at the meeting convened at the request of the Honourable Chief Justice on Wednesday 24th May 2017. This was the clear, logical and inescapable inference conveyed by the press release from the Court Protocol and Information Unit on May 25, 2017, which stated the “consensus was reached” and the subject part-heard matters will be heard de novo,” Ramlogan wrote.

Ramlogan further noted that the denial by the Chief Justice ‘“had now called into question the veracity and integrity” of Earle-Caddle’s statement in court that she had received instructions to restart the cases de novo.

“Confusion now reigns supreme, as the Honourable Chief Justice appears to have “back peddled” from the position originally stated in his press release of May 25, 2017.

This flip-flopping has created a ridiculous and unacceptable state of affairs in the administration of criminal justice,” Ramlogan said.

“My client has a constitutionally protected fundamental right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court. He is entitled to know whether the court acted and/or was influenced by unauthorised instructions and/or advice in relation to his matter which was never disclosed to him. The court is not entitled to withhold such critical information from any defendant or accused person. The potential for a miscarriage of justice for the sake of administrative expediency as well as the perception of bias is obvious,’ he further noted.

Ramlogan told Earle-Caddle it would be impossible to reconcile the statements made by the CJ and herself in court and that the “untenable and unacceptable situation” will no doubt further erode public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.

He also bemoaned not having received the notes of evidence and transcripts of proceedings which were promised by the chief magistrate at the hearing on June 1.

Ramlogan said his office applied for same since June 5 but is yet to receive them.

In a recent television interview, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard also said his office was yet to receive the transcripts for the cases which are affected.

“My client has been in custody for over three years (January 2014-present) and has therefore lost the better part of his teenage years to a system that shows no compassion, far less understanding for his right to be presumed innocent until guilty and tried within a reasonable time,” Ramlogan said.

He noted the murder inquiry was at an advanced stage and nearing completion and that any decision to restart the matter de novo would amount to “the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment by the judicial arm of the state.” “It is contrary to established international norms and conventions which require the court to give special priority and attention to cases involving young children.

The fundamental right of a child to a fair trial within a reasonable time assumes even greater significance when that child is incarcerated,” Ramlogan said.

“The well-known delays in the criminal justice system are such that if the charges against my client are not dismissed upon the completion of the PI, he may be forced to wait another seven to 10 years before he can be tried before a judge and jury in the High Court.

By that time, he would have lost his entire youth through a system that says he is innocent until proven guilty but condemned him to the worst form of punishment without trial. The effect of your decision to restart my client’s case de novo is such that it will significantly prolong the period of his incarceration and the attendant distress, misery, and agony. He has been a victim of a system that simply does not practice what it preaches,” he noted.

Submissions on whether the acting chief magistrate can order the restart of the cases de novo are expected to be advanced today when several of the 53 matters come up again for hearing.

The DPP is also expected to address the court. On June 1, he submitted that before he can exercise his powers under Section 90 of the Constitution as it relates to 53 cases, he needed to know her status.

Gaspard objected to the cases being aborted by Earle-Caddle and restarted from the beginning. He said it was important that the issue of the court’s jurisdiction be ventilated to give effect for the lawful and proper handling of the cases.

He said however before he can exercise his constitutional powers as DPP, he needed to be furnished with the “unequivocal” position of the former chief magistrate.

“That is absent and missing,” he said. “The DPP does not know as a fact that the former chief magistrate has resigned.”