The incident between police inspector and magistrate

Dear Editor
PERMIT me space for a comment with reference to Newssource, May 23,2019 headlined, “Chief Justice orders release of Police Inspector jailed by magistrate for misconduct in Court’’.

It is a requirement, and a procedural professional expectation that prosecuting witnesses, especially in the category of police officers, would refresh their memories with the facts of whatever statements pertaining to a case, before mounting the witness stand.
I stand to be corrected when I state that it seemed not to have been the case with Inspector Prem Narine when he was called to give evidence; for it occasioned him to ask the presiding Magistrate Rondell Weaver to refresh his memory. From all appearances, these requests, in the magistrate’s opinion, were too many, perhaps prompting her ire which followed what was an undesirable exchange between herself and the officer. One cannot fault the magistrate’s reaction, for it was clear that she was being asked by Inspector Narine to aid him in an exercise that ought not to have been taking place, especially against the background that at his level, such unpreparedness is unexpected/unacceptable in court.

It is well known that in instances of shoddy preparedness, attorneys have, from time to time, been the recipients of severe reprimands from Judges; and they dare not respond in a (manner) that would suggest disrespect even if there is resentment for the chiding. But in the extant case, there is clear evidence of Inspector Narine’s outrightly rejecting the magistrate’s remarks which primarily had been about his requests for refreshing his memory, however she might have said it. It was her right to express dissatisfaction. Further, it was her prerogative to ask Inspector Narine to leave the stand and take his seat. His decision to walk out reeks not only of blatant disrespect and disregard for the magistrate’s order, but also contemptuous of her authority as presiding magistrate. Is such behavior permissible in a court of law? Not as far as is known.

There were other disturbing aspects of this drama, such as the magistrate having to request the police officers several times to arrest Inspector Narine, before they eventually did. It was an instruction which, as officers of the law, they were bound to obey and carry out. Were these officers afraid to effect such an edict because of Narine’s seniority; or was it a case of indirect support for their colleague?
Of course, Inspector Narine’s conduct was definitely one of contempt, which warranted a penalty, even if reduced to misconduct, which should not have been. But it would seem that because of a legal technicality, challenged in the High Court, Inspector Narine was eventually spared.

Editor, let me as a citizen, make this observation: first, repeating the fact that every police officer must be cognizant of the fact that they must properly be prepared with their briefs for court cases. For as far as my layman’s understanding of the law in such matters, it is not the magistrate’s right or even judge’s to refresh any witness’ memory, except where there are clear instances of contradictory evidence which must be pointed out.
Second, no police officer, irrespective of rank or crime-fighting successes/capabilities/reputation, should hold themselves above reprimand by the court, especially when they are at fault. This incident does not bode well for the respect that ought to be shown to the magistracy.

Regards
Earl Hamilton

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.