Magistrate Judy Latchman on Tuesday granted an adjournment in the Bishnarine ‘Sanjay’ Persaud causing death case after his defence attorney filed a constitutional motion claiming that his client was receiving an unfair trial.
The attorney, Glenn Hanoman, decided to move to the High Court claiming the magistrate refused to grant him sufficient time to lead his defence.
Persaud, owner of Sanjay’s Jewellery was charged with driving motor vehicle PKK 5501 in a manner dangerous to the public, thereby causing the death of Leon Hunte. The incident reportedly took place on September 11, 2014 at Lamaha Street, Newtown, Kitty.
Persaud had pleaded not guilty to the charge when it was read to him by Magistrate Latchman.
According to the court document seen by Stabroek News, the constitutional motion filed by Hanoman seeks to direct that Magistrate Latchman quash her decision “to unfairly exercise her discretion in refusing to grant a sufficient adjournment” on the grounds that the decision was unreasonable, unfair and not within the spirit of the law, unless she can show cause why the order should not be made absolute.
Another order seeks to prohibit the continuation of the trial until the determination of the motion, unless the magistrate can show cause why the decision should not be made absolute.
The third order seeks to have Magistrate Latchman quash her decision to unfairly exercise her discretion in refusing to grant sufficient adjournment on the grounds that such decision was unreasonable, unfair and not within the spirit of the law.
Additionally, a writ of prohibition was also sought to prevent Magis-trate Latchman from continuing the trial until the determination of the motion.
The constitutional motion was filed on several grounds including the magistrate’s “refusal to grant sufficient adjournment time,” which, according to the motion, is unfair and inconsistent with the due administration of the justice as well as an abuse of the said process.
The motion went on to highlight the defence’s entitlement to “have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with his counsel” in order to secure a fair trial. The motion said the magistrate’s refusal to allow that entitlement blatantly contradicts article 144 of the constitution with respect to achieving a fair trial.
Additionally, having been given the discretion to adjourn a hearing, the motion said, Magistrate Latchman failed to give a sufficiently long enough adjournment so as to allow the accused to be properly briefed by his lawyer.
It further stated that the magistrate has a duty to have reasons for her decision not to uphold a no-case submission as well as to communicate such reason(s).
Also listed as grounds for the filing of the motion were the magistrate’s failure to give rulings on the admissibility of both written and oral statements purportedly made by the accused despite it being an issue that was specially asked to be addressed.
Reference was also made to Section C of Article 144 of the Constitution which allows for adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence. This constitutional provision, according to the court document, has been endorsed by several conventions including Article 14 (3) (b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that in the determination of any criminal charge against a person, said person is entitled to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with his counsel of his choosing.
The last ground listed stated that securing a fair trial with facilities and fair and sufficient opportunity to fully and adequately prepare for the defence take pre-eminence over the reason for not granting sufficiently long adjournment.
In Persaud’s affidavit in support of motion, he said that since the conclusion of the four witnesses, the prosecution has been granted several adjournments until July 24 when it closed its case. The matter was subsequently adjourned to July 27, where a written submission was expected to be produced to the court.
The affidavit went on to relate that on July 27, Persaud was present when submissions, specifically asking for rulings to be made on admissibility of written and oral statements purportedly made by the accused, were laid over to Magistrate Latchman.
However, Hanoman’s written submission was overruled, additionally, no rulings were made on the issues raised in the defence’s submissions nor were reasons communicated for the decision taken by the magistrate.
It further stated that on July 28, Hanoman sought to have the case adjourned to July 30, as he had not had the opportunity of properly briefing his client in relation to leading a defence before the court.
However, this did not happen, the document stated, as the magistrate adjourned the matter to 3.30 the same day. It went on to state that due to scheduled appearances in the High Court as well as Magistrate’s Court, as well as the absence of rulings on the issue of admissibility, Hanoman would not have been available to properly defend the case.
Stabroek News was reliably informed that it was during that adjournment that Hanoman filed the motion.
When court resumed, instead of leading his defence, Hanoman produced the motion; the magistrate, after reading it, adjourned the matter until September 30.
