-urges adherence to judicial hierarchy

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC, has voiced strong objections to a recent decision by a magistrate to permit a defendant, who is on bail, to leave Guyana.
Nandlall addressed the matter on Tuesday’s airing of his weekly show, ‘Issues in the News’ in reference to a decision by a Magistrate to allow the pregnant wife of Assistant Police Commissioner, Calvin Brutus to leave the country despite being currently embroiled in legal cases.
The Attorney General argued that such a decision exceeds the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court and conflicts with established legal principles.
To this end, he explained that the magistrate is a creature of statute and does not have those kinds of powers.

He emphasized that a magistrate’s authority is confined to the statutory provisions, which do not include granting international travel privileges to individuals charged with criminal offences and out on bail.
Nandlall provided an in-depth explanation of the legal framework governing defendants in custody. “When a person is charged, that person is in the custody of the court,” he explained, adding that the court can either remand the individual to prison, release them into the custody of a surety under bail conditions, or allow them to go on their own recognizance.

To this end, he noted that it is only the instance where someone is released on their own recognisance that the person can be permitted to leave the country if they wish.
Further to this, he clarified that defendants on bail remain under the jurisdiction of the court and cannot travel abroad without specific permission from the High Court.
Nandlall pointed out that the High Court derives its authority to permit travel from the Constitution of Guyana.

“The Constitution of Guyana confers on every citizen freedom of movement, which includes freedom to travel or leave the jurisdiction and it is that high court that must give you that freedom under the constitution,” he said.
Criticizing the magistrate’s decision, Nandlall argued that it disregarded a prior High Court ruling in the same case. “In this very case, the High Court had adjudicated on the question already in relation to the same defendant and the high court refused permission to travel, a magistrate ought to have considered him or herself bound by that determination,” he remarked.

He also referenced a recent ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which underscored the importance of adhering to judicial hierarchy. “The CCJ, only two months ago, reinforced and reiterated the importance of this very principle in the case of Sarah Brown and Vikash Ramkissoon against Christopher Jones.”

Against this backdrop, he described the decision by the magistrate as one that is ‘flagrantly in conflict with the law’ and indicated that it cannot be allowed to stand.
He added, “The public record must be rectified and cleansed of this legal travesty.”