Dear Editor,
Legal officers in Guyana and the Eastern Caribbean are debating whether or not it is right for magistrates to commit accused persons for trial by merely looking at statements taken by police and they are also looking at decisions by grand juries in the United States. Two recent decisions where the juries decided not to indict two white men in Ferguson and Staten Island sparked off demonstrations and protests in the United States, because it was held that their decisions were biased and racially motivated.
During the past ten days there have been mounting protests clamouring for a change in the legal system on the grounds that there were different laws for whites and blacks. The protests were held throughout the United States forcing President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to make public statements; and even some British citizens protested in the streets of a few cities in the United Kingdom.
The law dealing with preliminary inquiries was amended to save judicial time; rather than a magistrate hearing testimony from witnesses at a preliminary inquiry (PI) where accused persons or lawyers appearing for them can cross examine the witnesses, the law has been amended that instead of a PI, the statements taken by the police from witnesses can be filed in the court and served on the prosecution officer/counsel for the magistrate to make a determination whether or not to commit the accused persons to trial before a high court judge and a jury.
In the British legal system even if an accused person is committed to stand trial before a judge and jury the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) can still intervene and enter a nolle prosequi and free the accused, The DPP also has the power to indict an accused person even if the magistrate freed the person. In other words the DPP has full authority to determine if an accused person can be tried by a judge and jury.
In Guyana, one of the leading lawyers Murseline Bacchus challenged the constitutionality of the law which in relation to sexual offences allows committal from statements, stating that his client in a rape case or his attorney had the right to cross-examine the witnesses at the PI, and he had been denied this because he had been committed to stand trial merely from statements. Chief Justice Ian Chang agreed with Mr Bacchus.
Over in the United States a grand jury hearing is equivalent to a preliminary inquiry where the jury has to decide whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the suspect. In my view the mistake made by the grand jury in both the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases is that the jury treated their function as that of a trial instead of an inquiry. Their role was merely to ascertain if there was enough evidence for the suspects to go on trial and not evidence to convict, which requires beyond all reasonable doubt.
Yours faithfully,
Oscar Ramjeet
