.jpg)
Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall does not foresee any resistance from the Parliamentary Opposition with respect to the Amendment of the Court of Appeal Act on the premise that it is devoid of any political or contentious implications and/or ramifications. AG Nandlall said it is a bill designed to improve the judicial system of Guyana and will allow people to have greater access to appellate tribunals within the Judiciary. “So from every perspective, it is a bill that is very effective and will advance the cause of justice, and therefore I do not anticipate any opposition.”
He stated that the bill is long overdue, and that in the current legal system, there exists a prohibition in the Court of Appeal Act that prevents certain categories of cases from being appealed against.
He pointed out that the current Act allows for a High Court Judge “to essentially be the final arbiter of a whole category of cases, though you have a Court of Appeal and a Caribbean Court of Justice.”
The category of cases that the prohibition relates to are those styled in the law as “a matter arising out of any criminal cause or matter. So that if for example, anyone challenging any proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court or any proceedings that have for example, implications which touch and concern criminal law, and that challenge is made to the High Court, and the High Court rules, neither party can appeal that decision of the High Court, to any higher court,” the AG clarified.
He noted that the current law is a very old and antiquated prohibition which has existed since the Guyana Court of Appeal was established just after Independence. The law had its genesis in the 1873 legislation in England; and while England has changed its position on that particular law, in the Caribbean, almost every country that had the same prohibition has removed it.
“And therefore, it is something that we should remove. It serves no useful purpose anymore,” he said.
The AG cited the case of former Police Commissioner Henry Greene whom the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had recommended to be charged with the offence of rape. The former Top Cop had challenged the DPP’s decision in the High Court which upheld Mr. Greene’s contention.
The DPP wanted to appeal the ruling, but could not do so as a result of the prohibition.
“So you have cases that are basically unappealable, and that is not good for a judicial system that carries in it several tiers of Appellate Courts,” AG Nandlall contended.
He also pointed to the fact that the judiciary itself had called for a change in the law, and that since the 1970s when there were cases in which the prohibition had prevented appeals from taking place, the judiciary had expressed the need for the change to allow for appeals to be filed against decisions in relation to those cases.
“So it is a very anachronistic and antiquated prohibition, and there seems to be no good sense to keep it any longer on our statue books, and therefore we are moving now to remove it,” he stated. (GINA)
He stated that the bill is long overdue, and that in the current legal system, there exists a prohibition in the Court of Appeal Act that prevents certain categories of cases from being appealed against.
He pointed out that the current Act allows for a High Court Judge “to essentially be the final arbiter of a whole category of cases, though you have a Court of Appeal and a Caribbean Court of Justice.”
The category of cases that the prohibition relates to are those styled in the law as “a matter arising out of any criminal cause or matter. So that if for example, anyone challenging any proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court or any proceedings that have for example, implications which touch and concern criminal law, and that challenge is made to the High Court, and the High Court rules, neither party can appeal that decision of the High Court, to any higher court,” the AG clarified.
He noted that the current law is a very old and antiquated prohibition which has existed since the Guyana Court of Appeal was established just after Independence. The law had its genesis in the 1873 legislation in England; and while England has changed its position on that particular law, in the Caribbean, almost every country that had the same prohibition has removed it.
“And therefore, it is something that we should remove. It serves no useful purpose anymore,” he said.
The AG cited the case of former Police Commissioner Henry Greene whom the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had recommended to be charged with the offence of rape. The former Top Cop had challenged the DPP’s decision in the High Court which upheld Mr. Greene’s contention.
The DPP wanted to appeal the ruling, but could not do so as a result of the prohibition.
“So you have cases that are basically unappealable, and that is not good for a judicial system that carries in it several tiers of Appellate Courts,” AG Nandlall contended.
He also pointed to the fact that the judiciary itself had called for a change in the law, and that since the 1970s when there were cases in which the prohibition had prevented appeals from taking place, the judiciary had expressed the need for the change to allow for appeals to be filed against decisions in relation to those cases.
“So it is a very anachronistic and antiquated prohibition, and there seems to be no good sense to keep it any longer on our statue books, and therefore we are moving now to remove it,” he stated. (GINA)
