Dear Editor,

AN ILLEGAL system of operation by the police in Region Two defeats the course of justice, but is very much evident with the use of documented out-of-court agreements of settlement from a Justice of the Peace (JP).

This is being done to dispose of criminal matters at the station level instead of offenders being charged and placed before the court, which is the only proper forum to make a settlement.

As a matter of fact, JPs are in violation of the law when they prepare a legal document in this regard, and moreso charge a fee for same, as this is clearly defined in the legal Practitioners Act, which specifically states that only an attorney-at-law is vested with the authority to do so.

There is also no provision whatsoever in the law for the police to make settlements at the station level, as, in the line of their duty, this can be seen as a ‘short cut’ to settle a matter but pervert the course of justice for financial gains to augment their income in a corrupt manner.

It also needs to be made known that an out-of-court agreement of settlement made by a JP is not legally binding, and its use is making a mockery of the justice system.

Presently, there is a case engaging the attention of the court which emerged from an out-of-court agreement of settlement by a JP that backfired, with a woman who was the victim claiming in her evidence that she was coerced by a detective corporal to agree to the settlement against her will. The JP also testified that he did prepare the legal document on the instructions of the police, with the fee collected by him being $10,000.

All of this problem could well have been avoided if the police had confined their operations within the ambit of the law.

It is quite manifest that when settlements are made at the station level, the state stands to lose much-needed revenue, ever so much vitally necessary for the development of the country, as compared with court action which makes it possible to derive financial gains from the imposition of monetary penalties.

Furthermore, such settlements encourage the commission of more criminal activities in the absence of court action being taken, where a magistrate could even impose a custodial sentence to serve as a deterrent.

A settlement in court is very simple and easy, with anyone desirous of doing so just informing the magistrate without having to pay to get a JP document, from which the police will obviously get a ‘kickback’.

Can anything be done to stop this presumptuous malpractice that is ever so detrimental to the interest of the state? The answer is yes; all Government needs to do is to make it mandatory for all settlements to be made at the courts, with a directive to do so.
When this is implemented — the sooner the better — it will inevitably exterminate this out-of-court settlement anomaly once and for all.

For many good reasons, it is ever so important for justice to be allowed to take its course at all times.

Respectfully,
BALIRAM PERSAUD