The Select Committee of the National Assembly on November 22, 2009 in a newspaper advertisement invited written submissions from consumers, dealing with the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Bill 2008.
It seems that many consumers do not read advertisements or rely on the internet for newspaper information.
Mr C M Llewellyn John, well known lawyer/politician, submitted a memorandum which will have to serve as the consumer response to this bill.
Here is his memorandum:-
“With reference to the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Bill 2008, excerpts whereof were published under hand of Ms. Eileen Cox * * ‘Consumer Concerns’ in Stabroek News… of November 22, 2009, page 6A, I write to express my disagreement with the proposal to amend the Court of Appeal Act to provide for appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Court of Appeal or the Caribbean Court of Justice.
“My reasons are:
“Firstly, it is a break from tradition which has established that after a person who is charged is freed, he should be made to rehabilitate himself as early as possible.
“Secondly, and more fundamentally, there have been many inordinate delays in the justice system whereby persons are kept in prison for several years before trial with the result that after years have elapsed, they find it difficult to adjust themselves to the rest of society.
“For example,
“I refer to a matter of charges against Mark Benschop in which I was involved in seeking the freedom of that individual. There were protracted delays in the trial, even though the learned trial Judge had made a summing up, which to my mind, was such that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury.
“The interest of justice would not have been served when, for five more years the trial had been delayed, denying the defendant having his day in Court to prove his innocence and he was released from incarceration only by a dubious method. To confer on the DPP who like any other legal functionary, can make gross errors or be subjected to bias, prejudice or spite, the right to further prolong the agony imposed on the Defendant by going to 2 (two) further Courts will result in manifest injustice to the Defendant who may well be innocent and should never have been placed in jeopardy in the first instance.”
The above are the views of Mr Llewellyn John. Consumers who share those views may even now submit their recommendations to the Select Committee and I feel certain their views will be considered by that committee.
