Justice Navindra Singh dismisses Jones Raymond suit against the State

— Orders $500,000.00 costs

1.   On Friday, 12th July, 2024, Mr. Justice Navindra Singh sitting in the High Court, Georgetown dismissed a claim filed by Jones Raymond on the 25th of October, 2022, claiming a breach of several of his constitutional rights. Justice Singh also awarded costs against the claimant to be paid to the Attorney General, the respondent.

2.   In his High Court action, Raymond claimed against the Attorney General, inter alia, the following reliefs:

i. A Declaration that the imprisonment of the Claimant on remand in both the Camp Street and Lusignan Prison for in excess of nine years without a trial after he was charged with the offence of Murder was in contravention of the fundamental rights of the Claimant guaranteed under Article 144(1) of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana;

ii. A Declaration that the imprisonment of the Claimant on remand in both the Camp Street and Lusignan Prison for in excess of nine years without a trial after he was charged with the offence of Murder, in particular the circumstances of such imprisonment was in contravention of the fundamental rights of the Claimant guaranteed under Article 141 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana;

iii. A Declaration that the conditions under which the Claimant was kept and housed in the Camp Street and Lusignan Prisons while incarcerated therein on remand for in excess of nine years was unlawful and in contravention of the fundamental rights of the Claimant guaranteed under Article 141 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.

BACKGROUND

3.   The Claimant, Jones Raymond, allegedly on the 26th day of December, 2012, at about 23:00hrs walked into the shop holding one bow and two arrows where Gary Joseph (the deceased) and others were purchasing and drinking alcohol at the time.

4.   The Claimant fixed his arrow to the bow and pointed same at the deceased and launched his arrow towards the deceased. The arrow struck the deceased in his abdomen and he later died of his injuries.

5.   The Claimant was charged with the offence of Murder contrary to Common Law on December 28th 2012 and taken before the Magistrate at the Mahdia Magistrate’s Court who commenced a Preliminary Inquiry [PI] into the charge to determine if on December 28th 2012 and taken before the Magistrate at the Mahdia Magistrate’s Court who commenced a Preliminary Inquiry [PI] into the charge to determine if there was sufficient evidence to commit the Claimant for trial at the Assizes.

6.   The Claimant was remanded to prison for the conduct of the PI which concluded on October 15th 2014. Upon the conclusion of the PI the Claimant was committed by the Magistrate to stand trial at the Assizes.

7.   Thereafter the depositions taken by the Magistrate were typed and transmitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on March 23rd 2015.

8.   Having reviewed the depositions, the DPP remitted the matter to the Magistrate in April 2015 directing the Magistrate to re-open the PI to take further evidence. During the conduct of goal delivery for the County of Essequibo in July 2022 by High Court Judge Sandil Kissoon it was discovered that the Magistrate had, up to that time, failed to comply with the directives of the DPP.

9.   Justice Kissoon ordered that the Claimant be discharged from custody and also permanently stayed the prosecution of the charge of Murder against the Claimant.

10. Mr. Dennis Paul and Mr. Timothy Jonas SC appeared for the Claimant, Jones Raymond. Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC MP, Ms. Loretta Noel, Senior Legal Advisor and Ms. Marnice Hestick, State Counsel appeared for the Defendant, the Attorney General.

11. The Claimant asserted he spent nine years on remand without a trial and that was a breach of his right to fair hearing within a reasonable time.

12. The Honourable Justice Singh ruled that on the issue of Article 144, there was no breach of Jones Raymond’s right to a fair trial. The Court found that the Claimant’s assertion of his right to a trial does not mean that the Claimant has to specifically demand a trial, rather, the Court is entitled to assess the Claimant’s conduct in determining whether he waived his right to a trial for any or all of the delay period. The Court found that the Claimant, in indicating that he wanted to plead guilty to the lesser included offence of Manslaughter thereby causing Justice Sandil Kissoon to order that the matter be sent to the High Court at Suddie for the plea to be taken, effectively waived any period of delay prior to such indication.

13. Additionally, the Claimant had not averred to any actual instance of prejudice that he has suffered as a result of the purported delay in being able to prepare or lead a Defence at a trial, in the event that he had opted to have his trial on the charge of murder.

14. A lengthy time on remand awaiting trial or the completion of a PI does not, without further, means that an accused person will not be able to get a fair trial. Despite the fact that a stay of the prosecution of the charge against the Claimant was ordered at Goal Delivery by Justice Sandil Kissoon it is clear from the ruling that Justice Sandil Kissoon did not find that the Claimant could no longer get a fair trial.

15. Further, the Court found that as long as a fair trial is possible, it is in the public interest that cases should be tried, especially when the charge is murder and the accused is accepting liability for homicide. In such circumstances, a stay of prosecution of the charge is gratuitous and is an affront to public justice.

16. While the Court did find that there was an unacceptable and unexplained delay in the prosecution of the charge against the Claimant, the Court found that the Claimant’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as provided for in Article 144 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guyana had not been infringed.

17. On the issue of whether the Claimant’s right to not be subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment as provided for in Article 141(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Guyana was infringed. The Court found that by his pleadings the Claimant is not claiming that he was subjected to degrading treatment or in any event has not pleaded facts to support a claim that he was subjected to degrading treatment while incarcerated.

18. With respect to the allegation that “He was attacked several times by other inmates.”, accepting that the Claimant was attacked by other inmates and assuming that this is capable of amounting to inhuman treatment, unless it is pleaded that such actions were done on the direction or prompting of the officers of the Guyana Prison Service and/or the keepers of the prison, the facts as pleaded are incapable of leading to a finding that the officers of the Guyana Prison Service and/ or the keepers of the prison inflicted inhuman treatment on the Claimant.

19. While the Claimant seems to have pleaded that he was placed in an unsanitary and uncomfortable environment, he has certainly not pleaded that that caused him any serious physical and/or mental pain or suffering. It is clear from the pleadings that his health did not suffer nor did he contract any illness as a result of the alleged unsanitary environment.

20. The Court did not find that the allegations set out in the pleadings demonstrate that the Claimant was subjected to inhuman treatment.

21. The Court found that the Claimant’s rights as provided for in Article 141 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Guyana has not been infringed.

22. In coming to these conclusions, the Court cited a number of case law authorities from the United Kingdom, the United States, the Caribbean and Guyana.