Appeal Court to provide interpretation on rules to improve criminal justice system

The Court of Appeal has been asked to provide guidance on the interpretation and application of legislation and recent court rules intended to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.

Appellate Judges Mark Mohammed and Geoffrey Henderson yesterday heard an appeal from a man, who is challenging the refusal of a High Court Master to dismiss four statutory rape charges against him after prosecutors failed to meet a set deadline.

The procedural appeal is the first to be pursued since the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act (AJIPA) were implemented last year.

The rules, similar to those that were implemented to improve civil litigation in 1998, seek to modernise the procedure for criminal cases and introduce sanctions for non-compliance by prosecutors and defence attorneys.

The legislation seeks to reduce protracted delays in the criminal justice system by replacing lengthy preliminary enquiries before Magistrates with quicker sufficiency hearings before High Court Masters.

According to the evidence in the case, in 2022, the man was charged with having sex with a 12-year-old girl.

After AJIPA was proclaimed in December, last year, his case was transferred to a Master for case management and a sufficient hearing.

During an initial hearing in February, the Master set deadlines for prosecutors to file witness statements and the indictment against the man.

The sufficiency hearing was scheduled to take place in April but when it came up, the Master held a status hearing based on a request from prosecutors for an extension to completing their filings.

Although prosecutors subsequently admitted that they wrongly claimed that witness statements had been filed, the Master refused an application to discharge the man on the basis of the prosecutors’ delay.

Presenting submissions in the appeal at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain, yesterday morning, the man’s lawyer Peter Carter claimed that the Master should not have considered the extension application as it was not properly filed and there was no supporting evidence as required.

“At the sufficiency hearing stage there is no going back,” he said.

“The appellant should not be punished for the unpreparedness of the defendant,” he added.

Carter suggested that the legislation and the rules had to be strictly followed.

“It is important that we respect and show adherence to attempts by the Parliament and the Rules Committee, through legislation and the rules, to have our justice system working in an efficient and effective manner,” Carter said.

He stated that failure to respect the rules and legislation would negate their potential positive effects.

“We would be in the same position we were in before,” he said.

In response, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Danielle Thompson called for the appeal to be dismissed.

She claimed that the delays in the man’s case were due to “teething issues” with the introduction of the new legislation and rules.

“This was literally two months after the introduction of this regime,” Thompson said, as she noted that there was no “flagrant disregard” of the policy.

Thompson suggested that the Master did have the discretion to grant the extension even without an official application and filed evidence.

“There must be some level of flexibility within reason in criminal matters to ensure all parties receive justice,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, the appeal panel requested further submissions on how similar rules are interpreted and applied in various Commonwealth jurisdictions.

The man was also represented by Yves Jacques Nicholson and Mariah Ramrattan.

The post Appeal Court to provide interpretation on rules to improve criminal justice system first appeared on CNC3.