Sam Hinds Jr jailed then bailed
Samuel Hinds
Samuel Hinds

CITY Magistrate Annette Singh yesterday granted Samuel Hinds Jr bail in the sum of $50,000 after he submitted an appeal application on a two-month sentence for the unlawful wounding of his sister-in-law Tenza Layne. He was also been fined $10,000 for using threatening language to Ms. Layne.Hinds Jr, son of former Prime Minister Sam Hinds, had been found guilty by Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond last year for threatening and wounding Tenza Layne causing her actual bodily harm on February 27, 2014 at 83 Duke Street, Kingston.
The prosecution’s case was that the virtual complainant suffered both verbal and physical assaults at the hands of Hinds on the day in question. He accused her of stealing his cellular phone, stamped on her face and dragged her around the house by her hair. He beat her with a cane then brandished a gun while continuing to threaten to kill her.
The trial was conducted by former Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond and Hinds was found guilty for the offences.
The case was however delayed because the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) removed the magistrate from the trial the same day she was set to pass sentence.
The matter was then transferred before Magistrate Singh. However, in a statement, the DPP’s Chambers said the decision to recommend a retrial was based on Section 35 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act. “This section clearly states that the magistrate who hears the matter shall give the decision. This means that one magistrate cannot hear the matter and another give the decision. Decisions have been interpreted by the courts in judicial precedents to mean a final adjudication, which includes a verdict and a sentence.”
On a previous occasion, the matter was taken to the High Court, where Justice Navendra Singh ruled that the magistrate could make a ruling in the matter, which was done today.
However, Magistrate Annette Singh on that occasion told the court that since Hinds has previously been found guilty, a retrial would be tantamount to overturning or appealing the guilty verdict, which she had no authority to so do.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.