Suenath: ‘Criminals’ may walk free

There is going to be legal challenges,. perhaps in all Ayers-Caesar’s. unfinished 53 cases, he said,. and the result could be that “criminals”. could walk free due to a. technicality which attorneys at the. criminal bar can use to seek their. freedom. The senior counsel said. there are accused, as well as victims. in each of these 53 unfinished. criminal cases, and the Chief Justice. has decided these cases would. be restarted before other magistrates,. following a meeting on. Wednesday with Director of Public. Prosecutions Roger Gaspard; Vice. President of the Law Association,. the acting chief magistrate, senior. magistrates, Registrar of the Supreme. Court and members of the. Criminal Bar Association.

Suenath’s view is that the issue. over Ayers-Caesar’s appointment. as a judge whilst she had these unfinished. business as a magistrate,. and subsequent revocation of her. appointment from the bench, “is. a situation that will get worse, before. it is cured”. The effect of the. decision of the JLSC which Archie. heads, Suenath told the Sunday. Newsday, is spiralling out of hand.

He joined with his senior counsel. colleague Martin Daly in calling. for Archie and the JLSC members. to do “the honourable thing”.

A senior magistrate and a judge. of the High Court, also shared their. thoughts yesterday on the ongoing. issue and whilst they were outspoken. in their condemnation of the. JLSC, recommended a cure of how. the magistracy should mend the. crisis regarding the 53 cases without. incurring any constitutional. challenges.

The judge suggested government. revisit the infamous Administration. of Justice (Indictable Proceedings). Act which was branded. Section 34, and re-enact the section. which abolished preliminary. inquiries, and place the burden of. reviewing criminal case files for. High Court trial before a Master of. the High Court.

The People’s Partnership government. in 2011, had initiated the legislation,. and after it was passed by. Parliament, the act was assented to. by former president George Maxwell. Richards.

However, government had to. repeal Section 34 when several. persons filed for discontinuance. of their cases in the magistrates’. court, such as UNC financiers Ish. Galbaransingh, Ameer Edoo and. Steve Ferguson. Section 34 in the. act prescribed a limitation period. of ten years for cases being held up. in the magistrates’ court or it becomes. statute-barred in respect of. certain offences, excluding treason,. murder, kidnapping, rape, assault,. drug trafficking and arms and ammunition. possession.

Another section of the law, however,. would have seen all preliminary. inquiries in the magistrates’. courts being abolished and replaced. by what the law had proposed. as “sufficiency hearings”.

Masters of the High Court were. to be appointed to examine the. evidence of persons charged with. murder, robbery, drug trafficking,. rape, and determine whether there. was sufficient evidence to go before. a jury for trial.

Speaking anonymously, the. magistrate said all that is required. to cure the issue of the part-heard. matters, is for the Government. to go back to the Parliament and. re-enact the particular section that. deals with abolishing preliminary. inquiries and replacing it with sufficiency. hearings. A retired judge,. in agreeing with that view said,. constitutional motions would not. arise on behalf of the accused who. may want to claim abuse of the. process by having to go through. another preliminary inquiry by another. magistrate.

Seunath, who once chaired the. Disciplinary Committee of the Law. Association for over ten years, commented,. “There is no doubt this is. going to get worse. If these 53 cases. have to go before other magistrates,. there is no doubt lawyers are going. to challenge the move. What is of. concern is that people who are culpable. of very serious crimes, may. walk free on a technicality. Men. who commit murder and caught. by the police, walking free and the. persons who would have been responsible. for this would be who?. Ask the Chief Justice and the members. of the JLSC who did not do. their job. At the end of the day, it. was their responsibility and I am. saying, they should all go. Start. with a clean slate.”. Seunath went on to say that it. seems that those who are administering. justice, were least concerned. about the consequences of making. a judicial appointment in the person. of Ayers-Caesar, but who they. ought to have known had unfinished. business in the magistrates’. court, but which runs the risk of. persons walking free for murder. and robbery.

“I say, the Chief Justice is responsible. for this blunder and he must. go. The country is yet to witness. the biggest evidence of this blunder;. wait when persons start walking. f.