THE EDITOR:
THIS is an open letter to Anand Ramlogan.

Dear Anand, I read your column on August 14, 2005, with great interest and immediately called to mind my paper of March 11, 1994, on the Magistracy which echoed your concerns but went further and recommended reform of a profound nature to the justice system.

You will recall in my paper presented to the McKay Commission, of which you were secretary, I too recognised that the criminal justice system was over-burdened and “continues to overflow as new cases pile onto old ones ...”

That was written in 1994.

I recommended three reforms to address this situation.

(1) At page 1, rubric “Judicial Administrative Functions of Magistrates”, I recommended that magistrates’ daily functions be separated whereby the Clerk of the Peace would carry out the administrative function of adjournments of the substantive list of cases while the magistrate would immediately address a pre-selected list of cases that are ready for trial.

In other words, magistrates should not have to use valuable judicial time with adjournments. I am sure you would have seen Clerks of the Peace perform this function many times when magistrates are absent.

See George John’s column of Wednesday July 27, 2005.

(2) Introduce Paper Committals. At page 2, rubric “Amendments”, I suggested that section 33 of the Sexual Offences Act No. 17 of 1986 and the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Enquiry) (Amendment) Act No. 20 of 1994 be amended so that accused persons or their Counsel be permitted selective cross-examination and/or no-case submissions without rendering the respective statutory provisions a nullity ab initio.

One has only to consider what obtained in the Airport Inquiry, now in its fourth year, to see the value of addressing this situation immediately.

There are other benefits relating to security of witnesses to be discussed later on.

(3) At page 5, rubric “Plea Bargaining”, I gave the rationale for such a provision which could lighten the burden to the justice system considerably as has the Dispute Resolution system which would otherwise have further cluttered the magistrates’ list of cases.

These provisions were adopted at a public meeting at Paragon Sports Club on Thurday, August 11, 2005.

The 8/11 Crime Committee proposes to publicise its recommendations and invites you to discuss the paper with a view to taking its provisions to the wider public and eventually to official quarters.

With respect to bail, I would like to reiterate that bail is not meant to be used as a punitive measure but as a means of ensuring an accused’s/defendant’s appearance on his trial.

We should therefore avoid fettering a magistrate’s discretion in the grant of bail as that will surely result in grave consequences to the public.

As I pointed out at paragraph 2 page 4 of the paper (professional) bailors’ fee is 10 per cent of the recognisance so the larger the bail, the greater the incentive to take bail for anyone, particularly the (professional) criminal who can pay for the service, not necessarily by cash but by illicity obtained (stolen or robbed) merchandise -- most times vehicles taken from ladies and/or other vulnerable targets.

Another problem that denial of bail throws up, is the provision that remanded prisoners must be taken before a magistrate every 10 days or thereabouts, a most opporessive and expensive exercise now undertaken by a private entrepreneur at tremendous cost to taxpayers.

If, therefore, we do not address the justice system to make trials a priority, we will be faced with the prospect of transporting prisoners up, down and across the country every 10 days for whatever time it takes until the PI or trial is complete; a frightening prospect, particularly since the accused/defendant is presumed innocent -- a fiction the magistrate is more than likely to hear with increasing volume and passion from accused/defendants or their Counsel -- try and recall the Naraynsingh Preliminary Inquiry at San Fernando when prisoners erupted, threatening harm to the magistrate, all because they perceived themselves as being “inferior” to the Naraynsinghs (whose respective cases were heard on a day-to-day basis): a dangerous situation in the making.

The justice system took a beating and was lowered in the eyes of the general public.

To obviate the need to transport accused/defendants on remand I recommended that a Remand Court be constructed within the precincts of the gaol and walk the prisoners to and from their cells so as to satisfy the provision.

A Clerk of the Peace can perform this function of preparing for trials as magistrates may baulk at the prospect.

The committee further recommends a system of bonded bail houses or individuals where accused/defendants can obtain the service at reasonable scheduled costs.

Defaulting persons can have the recognisance forfeited from the bonds if within a reasonable time the bailor is unable to bring the accused/defendant before the court.

The aim of the 8/11 Crime Committee is to produce a system that wherever the magistrate denies a person bail for whatever reason, he or she should immediately fix a reasonable time for trial and not leave it open-ended.

In addressing your concerns (and that of the Chief Magistrate) the committee concludes that High Court Judges grant bail to persons who are refused bail in the lower courts more than likely because the prosecution cannot guarantee a PI or trial (due process of law) within a reasonable time -- the essence of a (20/20) justice system.

This can be accomplished through the efforts of a “super justice department” as the 8/11 Crime Committee recommends, charged with collating evidence required in a timely fashion such as liasing with the Forensic Science Centre, the Armourer etc. and generally preparing paper committals for trial.

The 8/11 Crime Committee therefore looks forward to an early response from you in the hope that we can engage in apprising the general public of the benefits that these simple adjustments can bring to our justice system and that the recommendation reach official circles.

The 8/11 Crime Committee will hold another public meeting in the near future and look forward to having you and the media in attendance.

THE EDITOR:
TRINIDAD and Tobago is virtually in a state of war, as mindless acts of violence committed against law-abiding citizens continue unabated.

We are enmeshed in a web of rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping, insecurity and savagery never before experienced in this country.

The theories, assumptions and speculative rhetoric are no longer viable especially coming from these who have been untouched by crime.

Unemployment, poverty, lack of education and social amenities cannot explain the beatings, murder, kidnapping and brutalising of our mothers and daughters, our fathers and brothers.

The authorities must openly say why our youths are willing to rob and murder, not for food, but for a ticket to a “rude boy” concert, a $1,200 sneakers and a “raggamuffin” or “bad boy” outfit.

Truly, a culture steeped in spontaneous, aggressive bacchanalia will produce nothing different.

Our country is on the brink of an abyss, a boiling cauldron waiting to spill over.

Any nation can be torn to shreds by an enraged people.

One may even see a day when citizens begin to arm themselves; by any means necessary, to protect what is theirs.

The plight of the East Indians is real, to continue to turn a blind eye, is to maintain a precedent, that may one day take a turn.

A turn that may see others, weeping for their sons and daughters, as Indian parents are doing today.

Our leaders must be very careful indeed.

“If the great questions of the day cannot be settled by speeches and resolutions of the majority, then it shall have to be settled by iron and blood. God forbid!”

(Otton von Bismarck).

THE EDITOR:

YOU know, the funniest thing about this beast called terrorism is he always shows when someone has guns to sell, a war to wage, a government to topple or some legislation to pass.

And, almost invariably, the gallant American is always standing by, lurking somewhere; waiting to “help”.

Somehow America always benefits.

Take for instance, the so-called 9/11 and its convenience in America’s age-old ambitions to gain a strong footing in the Middle East and to control Iraq’s oil under the guise of removing a dictator.

Consider the part played by the anthrax hoax in driving fear into the hearts of ordinary citizens. So much fear it became imperative to these very people to accept the need for a so-called war on terrorism and turn a blind eye to the “collateral damage” that are strikes against ordinary citizens of any country that America decides is harbouring terrorists.

Consider, too, Britain’s own 7/7, coming at a time when Blair has lost his legislative majority in Parliament and so badly needs opposition support to rejoin his friend Bush in war.

What happens?

A strike against ordinary people, whose fears would be transferred to their Parliamentarians to support any action Blair deems necessary.

And just like his friend, he has been strutting around using the same war-rally words that followed 9/11, only in a different accent.

What’s next?

Approval for Britain to keep sending troops abroad in cahoots with America, no doubt!

Consider, now, Trinidad and Tobago where America has been trying to get their puppets to rush US-penned anti-terrorism law.

All of a sudden the theme-song is America watching Abu Bakr for years now and ready to move in anytime, Trinidad has terrorists …

Terror this, terror that, terror the other!

So what now? Boom! Bomb on Frederick Street.

Boom! Bomb on George Street.

Boom! Bomb in one of America’s franchised outlets.

Boom! Bomb in St. James.

Boom! Bomb on Henry Street.

What America wants, America gets.

It isn’t hard to find a fool to do the deed -- be he in Parliament, an illiterate from the lowest reaches of Trinidad or some Islamic Jihad dolt some part of the Eastern Hemisphere eager to “claim responsibility” or some Opposition party determined “not to make them look good”.

Look for that terrorism bill passing soon.

Look for Blair getting a clear mandate to go to war soon (internal issues being too boring and he too stupid and incompetent handling them anyway).

And look for Bush pressing on to another phase of his taking-over-the-world conquest -- maybe that Syria-Lebanon issue. Maybe Korea.

Maybe TnT where his operatives have been sending guns and drugs ever since the announcement in the early days of this administration that TnT people must get more out of their oil deals.

By the way, what ever became of that anthrax claim? What about the so-called weapons of mass destruction and all the would-be satellite evidence showing trucks carrying this here and that there?

How come everywhere America is, has been or has some faction funding, there always develops a culture of “suicide bombing”?

And the effect of these bombings ...?

In the case of Iraq, it shifts the war from being between the invaders and locals, to a civil level between those with religious, racial or political differences because one faction is attacked followed by reports that it came from the other.

So the invaders get to sit easy, watch the destruction and fan the flames or further mayhem.

Don’t be too quick to make America’s legislative agenda ours.

And don’t be sucked into their game of “terrorism”.

We have a lot more pressing issues to deal with in spite of that bombing madness and other red-herring-like distractions.