‘Sean Luke’ debate

Senate President Dr Linda Baboolal yesterday defended her decision to allow senators on Tuesday to refer to the Sean Luke Lumfai case during the debate on a motion on crime.

Baboolal stated that no one said anything that wasn’t already in the public domain and which had not been published “over and over” in the newspapers.

“There were references to the case (of Sean Luke) but nothing was said that could influence the outcome of the matter. So it is totally wrong to say that the sub judice rule was ignored,” she told Newsday.

Pointing out that the Standing Orders provided clear guidance on what was considered sub judice in the Parliament, she noted that the presiding officer had a discretion in determining whether statements made could prejudice the determination of a matter or not.

Baboolal said no one during Tuesday’s session spoke about the guilt or innocence of anyone. Rather, she said, Senators used the facts, already known, as a basis for discussion on critical social issues.

Commenting on the question of sub judice, Speaker Barry Sinanan pointed to Standing Order 36 (2) which states: “Reference shall not be made to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending, in such a way as might, in the opinion of the Chair, prejudice the interests of parties thereto.” He said this did not mean that MPs could not refer to an issue before the courts, but that the Chair must be satisfied that what is said does not influence the judicial outcome. Sinanan, however, did not want to comment directly on what happened in the Senate since, he stressed, he was not there on Tuesday.

Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson said yesterday that the sub judice rule meant that persons should not report on matters subject to litigation, in a manner which could affect the determination of the proceedings and which could “affect, impact, colour or favour” a decision-makers’ mind.

Henderson stressed that the right to keep the public informed had to be balanced with the right of the accused to be presumed innocent.

Henderson said that while people were entitled to discuss the issues of youth crime and young offenders and other social problems, they had to be very careful not to do so in a highly charged emotional environment and against the background of current cases.

Henderson noted that generally jury trials were more susceptible to prejudice than trials by a judicial officer.

He said because cases of young accused tended to be tried by juries, great care had to be exercised about making comments that could undermine the fair trial process.