I RECENTLY read about the judgement in a court matter whereby the magistrate freed the drunk driver in a vehicular homicide case only because he was able to open up his cheque book and produce a $3M compensation package for the widow of the deceased. Now, I had to read this judgement over and over again because I could not believe this was happening in the 21st century in Guyana, but the very thing I feared did happen, yes, right before our very eyes. A clear issue of what I would call “Cheque book justice.”

It all boils down to the fact that because this dude is at the level where he can fork out some cash and bamboozle a magistrate, he was freed of all charges. This is outrageous and disgraceful.
Then, if I may ask what would become of a drunk driver who has no cheque book? Would he be forced to do jail time? Would that magistrate have the audacity to say to that gentleman that he will be tossed into a cell for some years because he cannot (for lack of a better word) “bribe” the court? Aren’t these pointed questions that the magistrate should answer? These are the issues that cause one’s blood to boil when you look at the way justice is dispensed in our country. This lopsided, cock-eyed nonsense that suits the whims and fancies of the rich while trampling on the already downtrodden poor is despicable.
I have written extensively that the reason for drunk driving homicide cases being on the rise is all due to the fact that rich people control our courts. Certainly there is no redress there. People do heinous things like killing someone while in a drunken state and you look to the court for justice only to be insulted in this demeaning way. In essence, the magistrate is telling the rich drunkards out there you can drink your head full of rum then get behind the wheel of a vehicle, crush someone to death, then crawl into court almost immediately and write a cheque. The next day you are freed of all charges.  It’s just that simple.
Now I know what the magistrate is insinuating, that is, the fact that the poor widow accepted compensation is reason for him to let the accused go free. Hogwash! In the first place, the widow is in no position to speak on behalf of the injured party being her husband. He is the one who suffered; he is the one who met a horrible death; and he is the one who should make that decision. Seeing that he is dead and cannot represent himself, then we who are alive seek justice on his behalf.
If ever that magistrate had dealt fairly in this matter he should have had him spend a substantial time in jail as well as have his widow compensated; punishment on both counts applies. In his case having the immediate capacity to pay would have seen him getting a reduced sentence for the payment aspect. That is the only mitigating factor he had going for him. Other than the compensation aspect of the case, that drunk driver should have spent time in a common jail like everybody else found guilty of driving drunk.
I will forever hammer home the point that when you kill someone while inebriated it constitutes an intentional and criminal act because here you are drunk, while commandeering a potentially dangerous instrument – a vehicle, something that has the potential to kill.
This was expressly  so in Mr Sawh’s death, the impact violently flung him to his death having been hit from behind by a speeding drunk who could not control the vehicle. There is no way Shaun Lall should have evaded jail time.
The excuse that he has lost his job in Canada is no punishment at all; in my book he should be languishing in a cell in Guyana right now. Persons who commit vehicular homicides like the one described above should feel the full weight of the law.
NEIL ADAMS