THE State has moved to the Court of Appeal to challenge the recent ruling of High Court Judge, Navindra Singh, that the Guyana Police Force (GPF) does not have the authority to blacklist persons from leaving the jurisdiction.

The appeal was filed by the Attorney General, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Commissioner of Police against Police Finance Officer, Woman Senior Superintendent (ag) Marcelene Washington, who is currently before the lower court on conspiracy charges for allegedly defrauding the State by falsifying $5.1 million in food vouchers. The charges are indictable.

Washington had approached the High Court asking for a declaration that her deprivation of the freedom of movement by the GPF breached her constitutional right.

Additionally, she sought an administrative Order of Mandamus directed to the Commissioner of Police compelling him to remove her name from the blacklist at all ports of exit.

Justice Singh, in his ruling, found that the GPF cannot restrict the movement of any person around or out of Guyana unless such restriction is provided for in the laws of Guyana or pursuant to an order of the court.

In fact, he added that since the filing of these proceedings, the Bail Act of 2022 was passed and assented to and the provisions therein, particularly section 11, are most instructive.

Section 11 makes it very clear that conditions, including conditions restricting a bailed person’s ability to travel, may be imposed by the Court granting bail.

Justice Singh, however, found that it was clear that the names of persons charged with an indictable offence are placed on a list; whether it is called a “blacklist”, or an “administrative list” is wholly irrelevant.

Additionally, the judge said by creating such a list, the GPF and/or the respondents have determined that the law authorises them to limit the movement of such persons solely because they have been charged with indictable offences.

And, so, the judge made it clear that no such authority is reposed in the Guyana Police Force under any written law of Guyana, and they woefully misconstrued themselves.

The Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Mohabir Anil Nandlall subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal seeking to set aside Justice Singh’s decision.

Given the impact of the decision on the administration of justice, the Attorney General, on Friday, also filed a Notice of Motion for an early date to be fixed for the hearing and determination of the appeal.

In the Notice of Appeal, the Attorney General is contending that the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, Chapter 10:01 Laws of Guyana restricts persons charged with an indictable offence and who have been granted bail with surety from leaving the jurisdiction without the permission of the Court.

As such, this restriction is contemplated, and permitted by Article 148 (3) of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, Chapter 1:01, Laws of Guyana.

The Attorney General posits that Justice Singh’s decision violates, and is in conflict with express provisions of the Constitution, established principles of law, and precedent.

In the Affidavit in Support of the Notice of Motion requesting that the appeal be heard and determined, Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken averred that “the ruling of the Honourable Hearing Judge has deep and far-reaching ramifications for the rule of law and, in particular, the administration of criminal justice in Guyana.”

Demonstrating that view by way of an example, the Acting Commissioner explained that “In my position as Commissioner of Police (Ag), I have knowledge that hundreds of persons charged with indictable offences and granted bail with sureties can now flee the jurisdiction with impunity, and certainly, without the supervisory role of the High Court.”