By Miranda La Rose
The controversial Court of Appeal (Amendment) Bill to provide for appeals by the state through the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to as far as the Caribbean Court of Justice was referred to a special select committee after four hours of debate in Parliament with the government using its majority.
The PNCR-1G was against the bill being sent to a select committee and called for it to be delayed while the AFC urged that it be withdrawn.
In referring the bill to a special select committee, Attorney General Doodnauth Singh said that having listened with “rapt attention” to the concerns raised particularly by the opposition he was sending the bill to the committee for “sanitising and for the widest consultations to ensure that the state and citizenry are represented.”
Singh said he was familiar with the concerns even before and after they were raised in the National Assembly by the opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) who strongly opposed the bill.
In referring the bill to a select committee in which the AFC said it was not going to take part and which the PNCR-1G said that it was reserving its position on, the Attorney General said that the issues ought to be properly and adequately addressed.
He noted that a review of an analysis dealing with appeals of the state within the Commonwealth in relation to the criminal justice system was conducted by Trinidadian Dana Seetahal which addressed some of the concerns raised by the opposition in countries within the region including The Bahamas, Dominica, Trinidad and Tobago and St Kitts and Nevis.
In his arguments against the bill in its current form, PNCR-1G Leader Robert Corbin asked that the bill be delayed in the hope that there would be genuine consultations on the proposals tabled in the bill and that it be rewritten in a manner acceptable since there are possible constitutional breaches, including a possible breach of Article 139 of the constitution, which if the bill goes ahead may have to be settled elsewhere.
Suggesting that the bill should not be sent to a special select committee, he said that the track record of the committees on bills is one in which the bills are discussed with very little changes after which the government uses its parliamentary majority to pass the bill through the house.
He questioned the haste with which the government was pushing it through the house after giving just the minimum notice without explaining sufficiently why the DPP should be given the power to appeal when the DPP already possesses power that the ordinary citizens do not have.
He suggested that the objective was for the state to pursue a certain agenda. PNCR-1G MP Basil Williams was more explicit mentioning the name of a treason accused and a former political prisoner but he was cautioned by the Speaker Ralph Ramkarran not to mention current cases being tried by the court.
All the opposition speakers, who included PNCR-1G MP Clarissa Riehl, and AFC MPs Raphael Trotman and Khemraj Ramjattan were concerned about the bill eroding the authority of the judge and the jury. Arguing in favour of the bill PPP/C MP Anil Nandlall said that unlike other Caribbean countries like Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, St Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago where the state has the right to appeal, he said that in Guyana the Director of Public Prosecutions could only refer the case to the Court of Appeal for an opinion if the DPP wishes to challenge the acquittal of an accused at a criminal trial. The opinion has no impact on the acquittal but it could only be used for future reference.
The bill envisages conferring the right of appeal to the DPP for the following offences: Murder, treason, manslaughter, rape, defilement and other sexual offences, piracy, hijacking, money laundering, robbery, drug offences, burglary, housebreaking, theft, offences involving dishonesty, firearms offences, conspiracies and attempts to commit listed offences and aiding and abetting such persons.
The grounds of appeal would arise in cases where there was a material irregularity in the trial, there was substantial misdirection of the jury, a decision by the judge to exclude material evidence that the prosecution sought to present and where the sentence is wrong in principle, among other areas.
