I RECEIVED a libel writ from a judge in 2021.

There was no letter requesting a retraction, just a demand for $10 million and an apology. It was over a sentence involving what Guyanese used to refer to in the 1980s as “kick-down-the-door” crime.

The very last hanging in Guyana did relate to “kick-down-the-door” crime and two men were hanged. It was under President Hoyte that hanging was restarted. We need to resume hanging, but I will reserve that for another column where I will offer my suggestions for things I want to see in my country in 2024.

The writ was for my rejection of the judge’s decision for a “kick- down-the-door” murderer which I believe was incredibly light.

In my column yesterday, I stressed the need for Guyana to know who the applicants for judicial positions are which were advertised last year. In that article, I referred to the power of judges. My theoretical position is that everyone in society must be accountable, not only ruling politicians, but also judges who have enormous power over the society.

If the media and the citizenry can request explanations for what an elected Prime Minister or President does, why can’t society comment on judges who are not elected and not answerable? This country has seen some discrepancies in High Court sentences that are truly unacceptable and truly questionable. Society in Guyana, not the private sector, not foreign government, funds the judiciary from taxpayers’ dollars.

I am still mentally unsettled that Dr. Ramsahoye sued me for libel; I counter sued. Both cases were heard the same time — Ramsahoye before Justice Gregory-Barnes and my own in front of Justice Cummings-Edwards. Justice Gregory-Barnes awarded Ramsahoye $2 million. A decision was never given in my case. After seven years, I am still to receive an apology or get an explanation. How can members of the judiciary be so unaccountable?

Let us revisit sentence discrepancies in 2023; but before that let’s expose an explanation the society was offered by the judiciary over the past 40 years. The weaknesses of this explanation lies in a decision Justice Sandil Kissoon rendered last year in the Number 63 Beach hotel murder trial.

Society has been offered the explanation that the guilty plea for murder is automatically reduced to manslaughter and the guilty plea is met with reduced sentences because the accused threw him/herself at the mercy of the court and mitigating circumstances determine the shape of the sentence.

You would think that this is a tradition the judiciary studiously adhere to. But there was a positive break in the tradition last year: Justice Kissoon sentenced five fishermen to death for multiple murders on the high seas. All pleaded guilty, but the manslaughter charge was not substituted, so they were convicted of murder.

Last year, Justice Kissoon also sentenced the convict in the Number 63 beach hotel murder to life imprisonment without parole. The convict too pleaded guilty. So what is the point? It is that there should not be reduced sentences because of a guilty plea, given the nature of the crime. But this did not happen in the Number 63 Beach hotel murder drama.

The act was committed by two persons — a teenager and an adult. The owner of the hotel and his security rank were tortured and murdered with their fingers and toes cut off. A part of the foot of the security guard was removed from the ankle. When the trial came up for the teenager, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served – four years by Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall.

But this was not the whole story. The teenager was charged under the Juvenile Justice Act which prevents his name and picture from being published. The state has the legal capacity as in most countries to bypass the Act and charge him as an adult. Almost every year in the United States teenage murder accused are tried as adults.

The youth was the master plotter, but he got four years while his partner in crime has to die in jail. The criterion that should have been used to charge the juvenile was the nature of the crime. Body parts were found at the murder scene.

I spoke to the daughter of the murdered hotel owner after the youth was sentenced and she was emotionally enraged. I think she has not recovered mentally from that “time-served” judgement and perhaps should seek counselling. When the youth appeared in court, he was an adult – 19 years.

Why was he awarded “time served” when his sentence could have been longer? Our courts just defy logic. Imagine two Court of Appeal judges declared that 34 not 33 is the majority of 65.