NFL Jerseys Supply wca3zbg2

micevan1l6

Attorney General Anil Nandlall has challenged Chief Justice Ian Chang’s landmark decision that ‘Paper committals’Attorney GeneralAnil Nandlallare unlawful.On November 25, last, the Attorney General filed an appeal to the decision and is also seeking a stay of execution of the judgement. He is awaiting a date for fixture for a hearing by the Court of Appeal.The Chief Justice’s ruling stemmed from a successful challenge to the Sexual Offences Amendment Act made by Murseline Bacchus. Bacchus had challenged a Magistrate’s decision to commit his client to stand trial in the High Court under the Act.Bacchus, on behalf of his client, Ray Bacchus, had moved to the court for an order or rule nisi of certiorari directed to the Director of Public Prosecution, the Commissioner of Police and Magistrate Sherdel Isaacs-Marcus herself, to show cause why her decision to commit Ray Bacchus to stand trial for the offence of rape should not be quashed on the grounds that the committal is null, void,Kareem Abdul-Jabbar College Jersey, unlawful and unconstitutional.Bacchus,Brian Cushing College Jersey, in his petition, had submitted that he was not permitted cross-examination of the witness whose statements were filed by the Prosecution, nor was his client permitted to give evidence or call any witness in the proceedings before he was committed.On November 14, last, the Chief Justice ruled that, in so far as paragraph 5 of the First Schedule to the Sexual Offences Act purports to disallow cross-examination of the makers of prosecution witness statements,Kyle Lowry College Jersey, it is inconsistent with Articles 144 (2) (d) and (e) of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.The Chief Justice also ruled that Magistrate Sherdell Isaacs- Marcus acted in violation of the Applicant’s rights under Article 144 (2) (d) and (e) when she disallowed cross-examination of the makers of prosecution witness statements tendered against the applicant in the preliminary inquiry.Article 144 of the Constitution provides: (1) If a person is charged with a criminal offence, then,Joe McKnight College Jersey, unless the charge isChief JusticeIan Changwithdrawn,Cheap UCLA Bruins Jerseys, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.(2)  It shall be the duty of a court to ascertain the truth in every case and every person who is charged with a criminal offence-  {a} Shall be presumed to be innocent until he or she is proved or has pleaded guilty;{b} Shall be informed as soon as reasonably practicable in a language that he understands and in detail,Kemba Walker Uconn Jersey, of the nature of the offence charged;{c} Shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;{d} Shall be permitted to defend himself or herself before the court in person or by a legal representative of his or her own choice and{e} Shall be afforded facilities to examine in person or by his or her legal representative the witnesses called by the prosecution before the court and to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution.The Attorney General is appealing the Chief Justice’s decision on several grounds:   i. The learned Judge erred and misdirected himself in law when he ruled that, in so far as paragraph (5) of the First Schedule of the Sexual Offences Act Cap 8:03 purports to disallow cross-examination of the makers of prosecution witness statements, it is inconsistent with Articles 144 (2) (d) and (e) of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.ii.  The learned Judge erred and misdirected himself in law when he ruled that while it does appear that the amended paragraph (5) to the First Schedule to the Sexual Offences Act does afford the person charged, the opportunity of tendering witness statements on the same conditions as are applicable to the witness statements tendered by the prosecution, Article 144 (2) (e) clearly imposes a positive duty on the court to facilitate the examination of prosecution witnesses by the person charged either in person or by his or her legal representative.iii. The learned hearing Judge erred and misdirected himself in law when he ruled that the learned Magistrate Sherdel Isaacs-Marcus acted in violation of the Respondent/Applicant’s rights under Article 144 (2)(d) and (e) when she disallowed cross-examination of the makers of prosecution witness statements tendered against the applicant in the paper committal proceedings.iv. The learned hearing Judge erred and misdirected himself in law when he failed to consider that the specific requirements of Articles 144 (2) (d) and (e) are satisfied by the Sexual Offences Act Cap 8:03, in particular, the accused is entitled at his trial to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and give oral evidence.v. The learned hearing Judge erred and misdirected himself in law when he failed to consider that the Applicant’s Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by the specific requirements of Articles 144 (2) (e) are satisfied by the Sexual Offences Act Cap 8:03 which clearly sets out that the accused shall be afforded the same conditions as those applied to the prosecution.vi. The learned judge erred and misdirected himself in law when he failed to take in to consideration that the Respondent/Applicant,Ryan Arcidiacono College Jersey, who was legally represented by Counsel, was given every opportunity to provide evidence and failed or declined to exercise his rights during the paper committal proceedings.vii. The learned judged erred and misdirected himself when he failed to consider that a paper committal proceeding is a judicial process to determine whether in the magistrate’s opinion, there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial or to discharge the accused if the magistrate is of the opinion that there is insufficient evidence.viii. The learned judged erred and misdirected himself in law when he failed to consider that the Court was by way of Prerogative Writ not appropriately procedurally moved to make a finding of unconstitutionality.