By Fareeza Haniff

THE COMMISSION of Inquiry (CoI) into the death of 17 inmates at the Georgetown Prison on March 3, has taken note of the ‘harsh’ sentencing guidelines of one particular Judge in Guyana.While not identifying the individual by name, the Commissioners in their report pointed out that the Judge has “adopted a seemingly personalised approach to sentencing, which makes a mockery of the concept of sentencing policy.”

According to the Commissioners, over recent years, the Judge is responsible for sentencing thirteen offenders to a total of 1038 years in prison, which an average sentence of 80 years. “The laws of Guyana do not support this irresponsible approach to crime and punishment. Since all of the recipients of these unlawful sentences were found guilty of murder, the sentences appear to be a personal protest against the suspension of the death penalty in Guyana. Were the Judiciary, rather than the Prison Service to bear the cost of this behaviour, it would no doubt have been swiftly terminated,” the Commissioners concluded in their report, which was recently handed over to President David Granger.

In January of this year, the Guyana Chronicle had reported that Justice Navindra Singh was labelled as one of the most feared judges in the country. This was the opinion of murder accused Morgan, who had told Justice Singh, “Behind the prison doors you are referred to as the prosecution’s judge, who imposes harsh sentences.”

Justice Singh, in his response to the prisoner, had said “All I am seeking to do is to ensure that justice is done and that everyone gets a fair trial. I am in a position where if found guilty, I could impose the death penalty or inflict a prison sentence. Which penalty you prefer…the sentence or the death penalty?”

Some time ago a defence lawyer, whose client was convicted and sent to jail for a long period, declared that the judge was attempting to satisfy the wishes of the Human Rights people, who talk glibly about the punishment meted out to the killers, but remain reticent when it comes to relating the horrible deaths victims suffer at the hands of their murderers.

Meanwhile, in examining the larger context of the prison riot, the CoI said that the Judiciary and other agencies with statutory responsibilities to support the prison system, failed in their supporting role. The Commissioners pointed out that Attorneys-at-law are rarely seen in the prison assisting remand prisoners to get to trial. It was also noted that over the past ten years, an average of only seven prisoners per year have been released by the Parole Board.

“The Ministry of Health, which has the power to demand the release of prisoners on health grounds offer minimal services to the prison, despite a sizeable component of mentally ill, HIV positive and drug substance-addicted prisoners,” the report detailed.

The report noted that the judiciary/magistracy is responsible for the safety and well-being of remand prisoners, while pointing out that over-crowding is the result of weakness in the administration of justice, which remains unaddressed by the Judiciary and Magistracy.

“It is evident that this group of judicial personae have adopted an overly-restrictive and even punitive approach to granting bail, and an unwillingness to apply alternative sentences to imprisonment has ensued. The consequent back-log of cases in the High Court has reached astronomic proportions and there is no sign of a downward trend anytime soon.”

The Commissioners are of the view that the Judiciary has not taken steps, or has not publicised steps it may have taken, with respect to addressing the severity of the back-log of remand cases.
It was noted that of the 60% of inmates of Camp Street prison on remand, 149 are charged with murder, 50% of whom have been awaiting trial for more than 3 years and a further 30% for more than 4 years.

For those not yet committed to trial in the High Court, Preliminary Inquiries still have to be held and for those already committed, depositions have to be prepared before the cases can be called. “These figures and the lack of effective – or even ineffective action – to remedy them, points to serious dysfunction in the administration of justice,” the CoI report concluded.