| Attorney at law Mursaline Bacchus has served a notice on Magistrate Adela Nagamootoo requesting that she should refer a matter to the High Court to determine its constitutionality.The matter in contention is the Police vs James Ramlochan called ‘Ribs’ a butcher of Station Street, Reliance,Pat Tillman Cardinals Jersey, who is charged with Unlawful Possession of Carcass, which is being tried before Magistrate Nagamootoo at the Reliance Magistrate Court.Bacchus is contending that the section under which his client is charged, is unconstitutional as it contravenes his constitutional rights,Wholesale Air Max, under article 144(2) (a) of the Constitution.The Attorney also in his notice to the Magistrate paid attention to Section 94(1) of chapter 8:02 which in part reads “everyone charged before the court with having in his possession, or under his control,China NFL Jerseys, in any manner or in any place,Cheap Jerseys Free Shipping, anything which is reasonably suspected to be stolen or unlawfully obtained, which does not give an account,China Jerseys, to the satisfaction of the court,wholesale jerseys, as to how he came thereby, shall be liable to a fine of five hundred dollars or to imprisonment of six months.The Senior Counsel is submitting that the unconstitutionality is obvious in that the burden of proof that is cast on his client under Section 94(1) is directly in contravention of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 144(2) of the constitution.In continuing his arguments the Attorney submits that the constitution is the Supreme law of the land and any other law which is inconsistent with it is deemed, as far as such inconsistency is concern, to be void, Article 8.Bacchus is thus requesting that the Magistrate, before proceeding any further with the trial, refer the question of unconstitutionality or otherwise of Section 94 to the High Court as is provided for under Article 153(3) of the Constitution which reads – “If in any proceedings of any court subordinate to the High Court, any question arises as to the contravention of any of the provision of Articles 138 to 151 (inclusive), the person presiding in that court shall refer the question to the High Court unless, in his opinion,Adidas Basketball Shoes Sale, the rising of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious”.The attorney is further submitting that the question raised is not frivolous or vexatious. |
