The reason I went to see Justice Roxanne George and the DPP

SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 | BY KNEWS | FILED UNDER FEATURES / COLUMNISTS, FREDDIE KISSOON

I was contacted by several persons, including two lawyers, two prominent politicians, and five other persons about a High Court case (that concluded two weeks ago) before Justice Roxanne George. The accused penetrated a close relative with his finger and was sentenced to 45 years. He was a car wash attendant who conducted his own defence. The State had two prosecutors –Shawnette Austin and Diane Kaulesar. I have no medical evidence but from what I know I think this convicted person is a bit mentally challenged. The other five persons that made contact with me were two of his family members and three friends from his car-wash workplace. A close relative told me the accused had no money for a lawyer. Since my involvement, attorney, Madan Kissoon, has filed an appeal so I will not discuss the case further. I cannot discuss the case in this column because the Sexual Offences Act precluded the press from any kind of reporting, a position I don’t agree with but more in future columns. My editor, Adam Harris offered some advice on a certain aspect of this column. We spoke because Ms. Liz Rahaman, the Public Relations Director of the Office of the DPP contacted Adam to make a complaint for which I offer no apology to Ms. Rahaman and would repeat my action because I think my action was proper. When I visited the DPP chambers, I asked Leonard Craig to accompany me because I know my country. I know the nature of a group of people named Guyanese. I am glad there was a witness, a prominent Guyanese at that. Ms. Rahaman came out of her office and discussed with me the route journalists have to take to speak to the DPP. You must fill up a form, state your business and she will forward the request to the DPP. Early in the day, Ms. Rahaman called my cell to ascertain the nature of my request. I declined to divulge details to her asserting that because of the sensitive nature I will only dialogue with the DPP. In the presence of Craig, Ms. Rahaman insisted that I must fill the form because this is the DPP’s position when journalists want to see her. I then told Ms. Rahaman I was changing my hat and will make the request as an academic. I was trained at three universities, including reaching the doctoral programme. I have twenty-six years teaching at a university with publications. I believe I have earned the status of an academic and my change of status was proper because it then changed the route you have to use to see the DPP. Ms. Rahaman complained to my editor about my two hats. I stand by my changing of hats. I went to see the DPP, not to discuss the case, but a legal term called “State Brief.” The DPP refused to see me. I went to speak to Justice George about “State Brief.” She declined to speak to me. I simply wanted to know why in this particular trial there wasn’t State Brief. The State only provides a lawyer to an accused if he/she doesn’t have one in murder and treason. Those are capital offences. But a judge in a serious criminal case in which the defendant doesn’t have legal representation can petition the DPP to provide legal assistance. This is called “State Brief.” I felt that the accused was facing life imprisonment and should have had legal representation. Back to the advice of my editor, Adam Harris. Adam suggested that I should not pen my disagreement with the 45 years sentence. He said in other countries rape carries a more draconian punishment. I believe a citizen has a right to offer his/her opinion once it avoids libel or sedition. Christopher Ram offered a pungent public disagreement with the Chief Justice’s ruling on the two term presidential limit. The Guyana Human Rights Association vehemently criticized Justice Insanally’s decision against an Amerindian village in favour of a gold miner. Roger Luncheon rejected Magistrate Beharry’s verdict that freed three treason accused. The same judge, Justice Roxanne George sentenced Stanford Dick to fifteen years’ imprisonment after he went to rape a child. The mother intervened and she was brutally raped and assaulted. Justice Brassington Reynolds jailed Dennis Evans for ten years for rape of a child. Justice Dawn Gregory gave Ray Thomas 18 years for raping an eight-year-old. Justice Reynolds gave Harold Naurayan 19 years for rape of a child. I could cite hundreds of cases with sentence disparity. This explains why I found the 45 years jail of interest. I will look at the Sexual Offences Act in greater details.