Toolbox

The Gilhuys decision

While the decision of the DPP’s Chambers not to recommend any charges against Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys over the shooting of a policeman has been considered on its merits, it cannot be divorced from the milieu in which it has been introduced.

Guyana is wracked as it has never been in its post-independence history by bloody, pernicious and unrelenting crime – most savagely underlined by the three massacres this year which claimed 31 lives. Each and every day gun crimes are being reported: murders, robberies, woundings and domestic violence – many with unlicensed weaponry and fuelled by the ease with which guns can be smuggled, procured and rented in these parts.

Moreover, it is broadly accepted that respect for the rule of law has been so systemically undermined that impunity is the order in the day, not only in the cartels, gangs and amongst the petty criminals, but in every other sphere of life: on the roads, in the schools and in everyday interactions. A society in which the rule of law is so disdained is in serious danger and can ill afford any further erosion.

When Magistrate Gilhuys was implicated in the shooting of policeman, Corporal Mark George, it immediately raised that age-old question that all law-based societies face: will citizens of stature – and particularly in this case, a member of the bench who has undoubtedly presided over cases like this one – be treated the same way as the less powerful in the society?

In this case it was pivotal that justice not only be done but that it was seen to be done. Unfortunately the manner in which this investigation was conducted and the final decision made by the DPP’s Chambers can only lead the citizenry to shake their collective head in dismay and utter as they might, “Yuh see, is de same thing I seh.”

First, considering the general circumstances of the incident and the shooting of the policeman that night on Woolford Avenue, had it been an ordinary citizen he/she would have been hauled forthwith before a magistrate the very next day or quite soon thereafter. There would have been no need for a referral of the case to the DPP at all. Commissioner Greene’s explanation that where cases revolve around policemen they prefer another opinion is completely invalid and unconvincing considering that in less clear-cut cases involving the police charges have been preferred without reference to the DPP.

Second, in the matter of the allegedly unlicensed firearm that was used there has still been no explanation why a charge was not laid, even if the said firearm was not the one which injured Corporal George. Will one be provided?

Third, the DPP’s assertion that deficient statements were presented by the police warranted the strongest possible rebuke of the police and a demand that the deficiencies be cleared up by the errant officers. Why was this not done and publicized by the DPP before a recommendation was made for no charges?

Fourth, the disclosure that Corporal George had importuned the DPP not to institute criminal proceedings and had volunteered that the shot fired by Magistrate Gilhuys had not struck him is exceedingly unusual and would do nothing to defuse concerns that compensation to complainants is leading to the termination of criminal proceedings.
Fifth, more than two months elapsed in a relatively straightforward case before the police and the DPP could finally pronounce on this matter. What type of criminal justice system is this?

Sixth, if no charges were to be brought against Magistrate Gilhuys, then the public should logically deduce that the conduct of the police that night was most unprofessional: that they improperly proceeded along Woolford Avenue, that they improperly stopped there, that they improperly approached the vehicle, that they improperly fired at it and in the ensuing two months they could present nothing to their superiors or to the DPP’s Chambers to make a convincing case that they had acted appropriately.

All of the above will further degrade the already shaky foundations of the rule of law in this country. It also shines a light on a now frequently used practice by the police when they want to avoid taking tricky decisions: send the file to the DPP’s Chambers. This was the case with another unsavoury circus – the shooting and wounding matter involving Minister of Local Government, Mr Kellawan Lall. That matter ended similarly, a recommendation of no charges. The technique has also been employed by the police in another matter of public interest at Unity where a well-connected and well-known businessman in the village allegedly shot up the house of a neighbour and menaced its occupants. The result in this case will be awaited with much interest.

In her reply to the news items on the decision on Magistrate Gilhuys, the DPP, Mrs Shalimar Ali-Hack contended that the reports had been carried without any recourse to her office. Stabroek News completely rejects this assertion. Mrs Ali-Hack’s secretarial staff has not served her well. There have been numerous queries by Stabroek News to her office on a range of matters which have gone unanswered. Since it is more than likely that her office will soon have extended powers as it relates to plea bargaining and many more questions will therefore arise, we suggest that the DPP urgently set out publicly what the arrangements are for the press accessing her office for information on ongoing investigations and other matters so as to avoid any further misunderstanding.

The public now needs to hear from the Judicial Service Commission on this matter involving Magistrate Gilhuys. There should be no quiet sweeping of this matter from the sight of the public. It has already gouged an enormous hole in the public’s confidence in the rule of law.

Comments

About Comments

We thank all readers who have contributed to this site since its relaunch. This section of the website is intended to provide a forum for reasoned and reasonable debate on the newspaper's content and we hope that readers make full use of it as many have already done.

The comments section is an extension of the newspaper and what it has become well known for over its history: accuracy, balance and fairness.
In recent weeks a large proportion of the comments posted have contained attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity. Comments of these types will be deleted.
Comments which contain gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity will be struck.
We reserve the right to edit/delete comments for length, any libel and taste. We moderate all comments so be patient while your message waits to be approved.
Curious about the little images next to each commenter's name ? Go here and sign up using the same email address you used to register for Stabroeknews.com then upload your image and confirm it.

10 Responses to “The Gilhuys decision”

gtintrouble
on September 8th, 2008 7:58 am

Excellent editorial. Unfortunately for Mr. Gilhuys and the DPP, the rest of the world is aware of this incident and its subsequent ‘disposal’. If there was a matter in which the person should’ve been prosecuted in the public interest, it was this matter. Mr. Gilhuys at the time was a serving Magistrate and as such in a position of authority. The victim was acting in the execution of his duties at the time he was shot. The courts in Guyana no longer have the discretion to offer bail to anyone charged with a firearm offence and this is clearly due to the prevalence and gravity of firearms and the escalating crime situation. If it is that the victim was compensated, then that’s a very serious matter and should be investigated since it may mean that someone has attempted (and suceeded) in perverting the course of justice. I recall a family member saying that the victim would’ve had to die for Mr. Gilhuys to be sanctioned for his actions. We now wait to see whether Mr. Gilhuys returns to the bench and sits in judgment over those without connections to the establishment in Guyana. Bad scene, bad decision, bad message.

My prayers and thoughts are with Mrs. Juliet Holder-Allen, whose fate is the complete opposite of Mr. Gilhuys.

[Reply to this]
drumup_change
on September 8th, 2008 10:06 am

………………i share my concern on the decision taken by the dpp………….gilhuys and I work together on the squad back in the days and did things that was unwelcoming to many people/police ………………the dpp must answer to the people of guyana on this one………………….what happens to me or my family………………….if they should get into a shouting match with some with a gihuys type attitude or another police encountering a situation identical to police officer george…………….i ask these question like any other guyanese who pay taxes…………….which…………intern pay for the building of good governance………. i am concern about the fire arm used in this incident……………..was it the police service revolver that he Gilhuys still had …………….or another unlicene fire he had ………………….why the police allow him to leave the station after the reported the crime????? …………..the government should not let this slide nor should s.n allow it to…………….i am not concern with police office george…..it up him…………and his pain…………………what i am concern about is the laws of guyana that protects us all……….as guyanese people living in guyana…………………..i beg you s.n…………………this is important to all of us and you should leave no stone un turn…………………………

[Reply to this]
D11N
In reply to the above comment on September 8th, 2008 6:10 pm:
Your wirting style is a pain to the eyes to read, remove the long………and the brain may make some sense out of your comment

[Reply to this]
lady34
In reply to the above comment on September 9th, 2008 5:41 pm:
Thanks D11N, drumup_change should be ashame of himself
JUAN GABRIEL
on September 8th, 2008 10:58 am

I guess my comment was too close to the bone. This section smacks of hypocrysy!

[Reply to this]
lady34
In reply to the above comment on September 9th, 2008 5:42 pm:
I agree with you Juan Gabriel when u speak the true the shut u down

[Reply to this]
MR, WEST.BANK
on September 8th, 2008 8:17 pm

I’m askinging myself the question “if i am charge for shooting someone
with an unlicensed gun and have to face magistrate Gilhuys what
will be the outcome ??????????????????????????????.

This man should of never be sitting on the bench in the first place.

[Reply to this]
lady34
In reply to the above comment on September 9th, 2008 5:44 pm:
why you people can’t stand up for true justice, and stop fighting against it

[Reply to this]
Ruel Daniels
on September 8th, 2008 8:27 pm

Guyana is a jokey country. With this kind of evidential impeachment of the criminal justice system, people who are balanced and can abstractly parse the implications have to be unnerved by the awareness that people are being killed, and such killings are being adjucated justifiable by this same system. I hope a time comes when the international community revists many of these events and drag the conspirators before the International Court of Justice.

[Reply to this]
bing
on September 11th, 2008 10:44 am

International court of justice what for. Are they war crimes been committed in guyana?

[Reply to this]