– first rejected in June 2013

AN important Bill seeking to expand the category of experts to present evidence in Court cases without being present received unanimous support in the National Assembly last evening.The Evidence (Amendment) Bill No. 23 of 2013 was first rejected in June last year when it was tabled by Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee. The Bill was re-tabled in December by Attorney General Anil Nandlall.
The legislation seeks to expand the range of documents/reports that can be admitted as evidence and also provides for an analyst, either from the Guyana Police Force Forensic Laboratory or any other qualified individual, without taking away the right of the accused or the court to test the reliability of the report or certificate presented by the said analyst.
According to the Bill, the documents to which section 43 of the Evidence Act applies will now include a certificate or report signed by an analyst who has examined or analyzed, for example, a firearm, a poisonous substance, human blood, bone or tissue and a certificate issued by the National Forensic Lab.
In tabling the Bill for its second reading, Minister Nandlall yesterday explained that it seeks simply to expand the category of experts, whose certificates, analysis, reports, or any form of diagnosis or certification, can be admissible in court.
He said, “The substantive section (of the Evidence Act) details the number of reports or certificates that are currently admissible in a court of law. This bill seeks to expand those categories.”
The AG added that with the advances in technology and the science, similar amendments will have to be made from time to time.
“Lawyers in practice will recognise pragmatic value of this,” he said.
Nandlall pointed out that the smallest and most trivial of cases, for example assault, presents difficultly when it comes to establishing a case without a medical certificate from certified practitioners.
He cited other civil cases, such as those addressing maintenance of children, where the mother is sometimes presented with the argument that the father is not really the ‘biological’ father and so does not have to support.
“One of the surest and effective way in leading such evidence is the use of DNA technology,” the AG said.
Nandlall highlighted too the scenario of fuel smuggling, noting that there is difficulty in establishing a case in the absence of an analysis, which is required to ensure the fuel contains the prescribed “marker” and to the correct proportion.
“This analysis report is key in establishing this offence,” he said. “This bill will address challenges in establishing cases where the reports or certificates are needed by analysts in different fields.”
The AG stated too that the amendment is crafted in such a way that the category can be increased.
“This will greatly enhance the way we conduct civil and criminal trials…this legislation has tremendous practical value,” he said.
He stressed that the Bill reflects a small amendment of “great value” to both legal practitioners and people depending on the system for dispensation of justice.
OVERDUE
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament (MP), Basil Williams, expressed the main Opposition’s support for the Bill and noted that it is “overdue”.
He acknowledged its usefulness in assisting in speeding up trials.
“What existed before were only two categories, relative to medical reports and certificates…we welcome the new categories. The importance of speedy trials cannot be understated,” Williams said.
The APNU front-bencher called for better enforcement on other pieces of legislation aimed at assisting speedy trials, pointing in particular to the paper committal legislation.
“We have not seen much progress in this. Jury trials are still taking a long time, despite paper committals…some people still waiting for years before they come to trial,” he said.
The AG returned that the said legislation is currently in effect and can be used by every Magistrate.
“I share his (Williams’) concern that it (the paper committal legislation) is not used as widely as it can be used. As an Executive Officer, there is very little that can be done. The act is lawyer and judiciary driven. There must be a willingness of the legal practitioner and the magistrate,” Nandlall argued.
He noted that there is room for collaborations to ensure that the legislation is used with greater frequency.
Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan, also expressed support for the bill, particularly as it relates to supporting the process of speedier legal proceedings.
He said, “It is important that this category is widened.”
CAUTION
However, he voiced the need for caution.
According to him, when documentary hearsay evidence becomes admissible, there has to be some means to ensure the integrity of the report or certificate, as well as that of the signatory.
“That person’s hearsay and account has to be unassailable,” Ramjattan stressed.
He noted that the lack of integrity of persons approved or “prescribed” by the AG or Home Affairs Minister, as members to be classified as scientific officers and specialist, have to have personal integrity and must come from a system of integrity.
The AFC Leader said, “These documents have far reaching implications, to the extent that they can also be used for political purposes…we have to avoid miscarriage of justice because of certain documents.
“We can have all the bills presented to bring us up to the present, but we have to have the enforcement to ensure no injustices. These concerns need to be addressed.”
Nandlall put these concerns, which he acknowledged as valid, to rest when he stressed that professional bodies have disciplinary powers over its membership.
“Outside of this, very little can be done to ensure experts conduct affairs with rectitude, competence and integrity,” the Attorney General declared.
The AG added that, as it relates to institutional integrity, steps have been taken to ensure this.
He added that on the issue of cross examination, great care has been taken by the Police and the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to ensure those who give evidence are available for cross examination.
“This is a good bill,” Nandlall posited.
Government MP, Bibi Shaddick, said the legislation brings Guyana further into the present.
“We realise that technology is here and we can make use of it, as well as the facilities such as the forensic lab,” she said.
The PPP/C Member of Parliament pointed out that the Bill comes at a good time when Guyana has the capacity to produce reports and analysis, adding that with the expansion of the National Forensic Lab, further amendments will come to ensure speedy delivery of justice.
“Justice delayed is justice denied,” Shaddick asserted.
The National Assembly resolved into Committee to review the Bill, clause by clause, and agreed on one amendment.
The Bill was read the third time and passed.

(By Vanessa Narine)