Still to receive direction from the High Court on how to proceed on the conviction of Samuel Hinds Jr, who is yet to face sentencing for assaulting his sister-in-law, Magistrate Annette Singh yesterday announced that she would make a decision on July 30th.
Hinds Jr, son of former Prime Minster Samuel Hinds, was found guilty by Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond of beating his sister-in-law Tenza Lane with a cane and threatening her with a gun at his Duke Street, Kingston home last year.
However, his sentencing has been delayed for numerous reasons since then, including the removal of the trial magistrate. As a result, there has been division over whether Singh, who was subsequently assigned the case, can proceed with sentencing.
A probation report, which had been completed since February, was read to the court yesterday. The court heard from the probation officer that efforts to gather information in relation to the case from Lane proved futile and she said that she had no interest in the outcome. The report was generally favourable towards Hinds.
After the probation report was read, the magistrate informed the court that the matter has been on her desk for a while now and she would like to see it conclude soon, since she can neither “go forward or backward” with the case.
As a result, she fixed the next court date and noted that if the application to the High Court for guidance is not processed by then, she will use the date for a decision in the matter.
The Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has advised that Hinds Jr be retried, while saying the law does not allow for him to be sentenced by a magistrate who did not conduct the trial that led to his conviction.
In a statement, the DPP’s Chambers said the decision to recommend a retrial was based on Section 35 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act. “This section clearly states that the magistrate who hears the matter shall give the decision. This means that one magistrate cannot hear the matter and another give the decision. Decision has been interpreted by the Courts in judicial precedents to mean a final adjudication, which includes a verdict and a sentence,” the statement said.
However, lawyers 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.
Article 144 (5) of the Constitution 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.”
His lawyers have stated that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, as opposed to other laws.
