.jpg)
CONSERQUENT to a Notice of Motion by litigant Kunti Sukhdeo, alleging that the failure of the DPP and the judiciary to guarantee her a fair hearing within a reasonable time, the Chief Justice who heard the Motion, has ordered that the criminal charge be permanently stayed. However, it is understood that the Director of Public Prosecutions is to appeal the matter.
Sukhdeo, represented by attorney-at-law, Basil Williams, had asked the court to declare that the failure of the DPP and the judiciary to afford the applicant a fair hearing within a reasonable time of the criminal charge brought against her since the 4th day of July, 2008, is an abuse of the process of the court.
In the affidavit in answer, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions had said that she had been advised by Attorney-at-law Prithima Kissoon and do verily believe that the Honourable Court ought to be respectfully urged to consider an appropriate remedy of an acknowledgement of the inordinate delay and an order to expedite the hearing to the greatest extent practicable.
The Deputy DPP said that she was advised by her attorney-at-law and verily believe that the applicant’s Motion herein is misconceived and vexatious and is not entitled to any of the orders prayed for.
But after hearing attorneys-at- law for the Applicant and the Respondent, the Chief Justice said IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the criminal charge, Larceny from a dwelling house contrary to Section 188 of the Criminal Law Offences Act, Chapter 8:01, on case jacket No. 2168/2008 brought against the applicant since the 4th day of July 2008 be permanently stayed.
Sukhdeo, represented by attorney-at-law, Basil Williams, had asked the court to declare that the failure of the DPP and the judiciary to afford the applicant a fair hearing within a reasonable time of the criminal charge brought against her since the 4th day of July, 2008, is an abuse of the process of the court.
In the affidavit in answer, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions had said that she had been advised by Attorney-at-law Prithima Kissoon and do verily believe that the Honourable Court ought to be respectfully urged to consider an appropriate remedy of an acknowledgement of the inordinate delay and an order to expedite the hearing to the greatest extent practicable.
The Deputy DPP said that she was advised by her attorney-at-law and verily believe that the applicant’s Motion herein is misconceived and vexatious and is not entitled to any of the orders prayed for.
But after hearing attorneys-at- law for the Applicant and the Respondent, the Chief Justice said IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the criminal charge, Larceny from a dwelling house contrary to Section 188 of the Criminal Law Offences Act, Chapter 8:01, on case jacket No. 2168/2008 brought against the applicant since the 4th day of July 2008 be permanently stayed.
