| Supreme Court Judge, Justice Navindra Singh, has ruled that there is no legal barrier preventing Magistrate Annette Singh from imposing a sentence on Samuel Nikolai Hinds.Samuel Hinds Jr.Sam Hinds Jr. son of the former Prime Minister Sam Hinds,Nike Air Max 1 Mens Trainers, has been embroiled in a criminal proceeding before the Magistrates’ Court since March, last year.Hinds was convicted before Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmonds on February 6, 2014 for threatening, assaulting and unlawfully wounding his 18-year-old sister-in-law, Tenza Layne.Chandan Edmonds had adjourned the matter to February 20 and further to February 27, pending the presentation of a probation report on Hinds’ behalf.Magistrate Chandan-Edmonds was however, sacked by the Judicial Service Commission, (JSC) before she could have handed down a sentence. The JSC had cited absenteeism among their reasons for dismissing the Magistrate.Magistrate Annette Singh was subsequently assigned the case. She expressed readiness to go ahead with the sentence.Magistrate Singh noted Hinds had already been found guilty in relation to the wounding charge and therefore to restart the trial will be to overturn or appeal the guilty verdict, for which she has no jurisdiction.She had sought directions from the High Court on how to proceed with the matter.Hinds’Attorneys nonetheless approached the High Court requesting an order to stay any further prosecution/adjudication of the criminal charges filed against him. Attorneys Peter Hugh and Latchmie Rahamat,Cheap Jerseys From China, had argued that the court was in violation of their client’s fundamental right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time guaranteed under Article 144 (1) of the Constitution.The lawyers also argued that the undue and unreasonable delay by the State to complete the matter is through no fault of Hinds and has operated to the detriment of his case, given that some of his witnesses are no longer willing/available to him.They noted, too, that their client’s fundamental rights will likely be further infringed if the charges are determined before Magistrate Annette Singh proceeds with the sentencing.Justice Navindra SinghThe Attorneys said that a retrial would violate the Constitution which stipulates a person should not be tried twice for the same offence after he was already tried and convicted. They therefore requested a declaration by the court that their client’s fundamental right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time is likely to be further infringed if the criminal charges are not stayed.However in response to the claims, Justice Singh noted that there has been no breach of Article 144(5) of the Constitution since there is nothing before the Court to suggest that Magistrate Singh has determined or indicated that she will conduct new trials on the charges against the applicant.The Judge further outlined that it is well established that a court,Marlon Humphrey Jersey, including a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, has authority of cases until sentence “since sentencing of a person found guilty of an offence marks the point of final adjudication.”Justice Singh held that though, there has been no breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 144(5) of the Constitution of Guyana it follows from the aforestated position that the circumstances of the present case, a plea Autrefois convict (acquittal) would not be available to the applicant.“Of course, this is purely academic “Obiter Dictum,Cheap Wholesale Jerseys,” since there was no breach of the applicant’s right under Article 144(5) of the Constitution of Guyana nor does there exist any legal barrier preventing Magistrate Singh (from) proceeding to sentence.Referring to sections of the application as “simply preposterous,” Justice Singh underscored that prior to passing any judgment on a convicted offender; the Court must first inquire and be fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.Singh held that as a matter of public policy,China Jerseys, 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, if the Judge /Magistrate becomes “ unavailable “ between finding of guilt and sentencing while awaiting the production of a probation report.Contrary to the claims outlined in the application, the Judge further noted that Hinds was charged 19 months ago and convicted within 11 months after. This was in spite of the fact that the case was adjourned on at least six occasions due to the absence of the applicant and /or his Attorneys.As such, Justice Singh stated that it is the court’s view that there has not really been any substantive delay in the trial of the cases.“In fact, based on the applicant’s submission,NHL Jerseys From China, the taking of the evidence was completed in both matters within 90 days of the charges being read.”Given the circumstances, the Judge denied relief and declarations asked for in several sections of the constitutional motion and ordered that cost be awarded to the respondent in sum of $50,000. |
