The High Court has ruled that there is no legal barrier preventing Magistrate Annette Singh from sentencing Samuel Hinds Jr.
The ruling was handed down yesterday at the High Court, in Georgetown, by Justice Navindra Singh, who also denied Hinds Jr’s application to stay all further prosecution against him.
Hinds Jr, son of former Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, was found guilty by Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond last year of threatening and wounding his sister-in-law Tenza Lane.
It is the police’s case that Hinds Jr had called Lane a thief, threw her to the ground, stomped her in the face and dragged her by her hair around his house. The man had denied the charges.
Lane was also charged with assaulting Hinds Jr but was cleared after a trial.
After conviction, his sentencing was set for February 20th this year, pending the presentation of a probation report. However, this has since been delayed for numerous reasons, including the absence of Hinds Jr and/or his attorneys as well as the removal of Magistrate Chandan-Edmond.
Magistrate Singh was subsequently assigned the case and had requested direction from the High Court on to how to proceed on the conviction.
In a notice of motion filed on July 2nd before the High Court, Hinds Jr submitted, among other things, that his rights under Article 144 (5) of the Constitution had been breached, since, having been found guilty by Magistrate Chandan-Edmond he cannot be tried by Magistrate Singh.
Article 144 (5) states: “No person who shows that he has been tried by a competent court for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for any other criminal offence of which he could have been convicted at the trial for that offence, save upon the order of a superior court in the course of appeal proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal.”
Peter Hugh and Latchmie Rahamat, the attorneys for Hinds Jr, have argued that a retrial would violate the constitution, which stipulates that a person should not be tried twice for the same offence, having already been tried and convicted.
Justice Singh, however, pointed out that there was nothing before him to suggest that Magistrate Singh had either determined or indicated that she will conduct new trials for the charges against Hinds Jr.
The judge ruled that on the facts stated by Hinds Jr, there had been no breach of his rights under Article 144 (5) “nor does there exist any legal barrier preventing Magistrate Singh proceeding to sentence.”
‘Preposterous’
Hinds Jr argued in his motion, also, that it would be unfair for Magistrate Singh to sentence him for the offences for which Magistrate Chandan-Edmond found him guilty, since she would not be familiar with the facts of the case.
But Justice Singh, citing case law, noted that “it is well established that a court, including a court of summary jurisdiction, has jurisdiction of cases until sentence, since the sentencing of a person found guilty of an offence marks the point of final adjudication.”
To Hinds Jr’s contention that Magistrate Singh would not have had the benefit of hearing mitigating factors when he led his defence, therefore making it unfair for her to sentence him, Justice Singh said in his ruling, “this is preposterous.”
The judge noted that it is at this stage that Hinds Jr would be able to present to the court whatever it is he believes may mitigate his sentence “and certainly the Magistrate would fully acquaint herself with the facts and circumstances.”
Justice Singh emphasised that, “as a matter of public policy it would be wholly unacceptable and would in fact endanger the lives of members of the judiciary, should the law be that persons cannot be sentenced by a court should the Judge/Magistrate become “unavailable” between finding of guilt and sentencing while awaiting the production of a probation report.”
In his application to have all further prosecution in the matters against him stayed, Hinds Jr had submitted in his motion that the fact he had been charged “more than two years ago and convicted more than seven months ago and still not sentenced, is an abuse of process.”
Ruling on this ground, Justice Singh, however, highlighted that Hinds Jr was in fact charged “19 months ago and was convicted within 11 months of the charges being read to him,” in the Magistrates’ Court.
The judge pointed out that the case had been adjourned on at least six occasions due to Hinds Jr’s absence or the absence of his attorneys. Justice Singh noted further that “there really has not been any substantive delay” in the trial.
The judge denied all the grounds in Hinds Jr’s notice of motion.
The case is set for hearing again before Magistrate Singh on October 23rd, when she is expected to make a determination on the matters, having now received the guidance she was previously awaiting from the High Court.
