Sam Hinds Jr moves to High Court to stay proceedings against him
Samuel Hinds Jr has moved to the High Court through his attorneys Peter Hugh and Latchmie Rahamat in a bid to stay Magistrate’s Court proceedings against him.
Hinds Jr, son of former prime minister Samuel Hinds, was found guilty by Magistrate Geeta Chandan-Edmond of beating his sister-in-law Tenza Lane and threatening her with a gun at his Duke Street, Kingston home last year.
After conviction, his sentencing was set for February 20 this year pending the presentation of a probation report. However this has since been delayed for numerous reasons, including the removal of the magistrate.
Magistrate Annette Singh, to whom the case was subsequently assigned, is still to receive direction, which she has requested from the High Court, regarding how to proceed on the conviction. The matter is scheduled to be heard before her this morning at 11.
At a June 12 hearing, Magistrate Singh had said that if the application to the High Court for guidance was not processed by today, she would make a decision in the matter.
Hugh stressed that his client wants the matter to come to an end and should not have to face a retrial.
In his notice of motion filed on July 2 before the High Court, Hinds is seeking relief on a number of grounds including that the Supreme Court stays any further prosecution and/or adjudication by the court of criminal charges against him.
Hinds advances in his motion that the undue and unreasonable delay by the state to complete his matters, through no fault of his, has operated to the detriment of his defence since certain of his witnesses are no longer available and/ or willing and cannot be found.
He argues that to defend the charges against him in those circumstances would be “unfair, unreasonable, and in breach of the principles of fair hearing and an abuse of process.”
Another ground in his motion states that the evidence led before Magistrate Chandan- Edmond does not support the commission of any offence and that her decision was arbitrary, null, void and breached his fundamental rights under article 144 of the constitution.
He further contends that if Magistrate Singh has to determine the charges against him and if she also proceeds to sentence him, then his fundamental right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time is likely to be further infringed.
The Attorney General is listed as the respondent in the court documents.
There has been division over whether Magistrate Singh, who was subsequently assigned the case, can proceed with sentencing.
The Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions ( DPP) has advised that Hinds Jr be retried, while saying the law does not allow for him to be sentenced by a magistrate who did not conduct the trial that led to his conviction. In a statement, the DPP’s Chambers said the decision to recommend a retrial was based on Section 35 of the Summary Jurisdiction ( Procedure) Act. “This section clearly states that the magistrate