A
alexk
Guest
A magistrate has been ordered to reconsider her decision to refuse to withdraw an arrest warrant for a man who missed a court hearing last year.
Delivering a nine-page judgment in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, Justice Frank Seepersad ruled that Magistrate Adia Mohammed’s decision not to withdraw the warrant against Winston Sutton when he turned up two days after it was granted was fundamentally flawed.
Seepersad also ruled that Mohammed failed to take into account relevant considerations over the reason for Sutton’s non-appearance and did not sufficiently regard the overriding objectives of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2016.
Seepersad said: “The magistrate should have considered that the recall of a warrant, once satisfied that there was no deliberate default in relation to court attendance, would be consistent with the obligation to deal with the matter efficiently, as the court would be able to retain its control over the matter rather than wait for the warrant to be executed.”
Mohammed issued the arrest warrant for Sutton after he failed to attend a hearing of his sexual offence case in the Port-of-Spain Magistrate’s Court in November, last year.
Two days later, Sutton and his attorney appeared before Mohammed and applied for the warrant to be discharged as they claimed that they both mixed up the adjourn date for the case.
Sutton’s subsequent lawsuit before Seepersad dealt with a magistrate’s power under the rules to withdraw an arrest warrant.
In his judgment, Seepersad noted that before the rules were introduced, last year, there was no direct policy allowing for such action.
Mohammed claimed that such an application could only be entertained if Sutton or his attorney had turned up on the day the warrant was granted. Sutton’s lawyers suggested that it could be done within a reasonable time.
“Ultimately, the magistrate erred in law when she failed to recognise that the rule enabled her to consider the recall of a warrant where the accused appeared on a date subsequent to the date on which the warrant was issued,” Seepersad said as he described Mohammed’s approach to the issue as myopic and restrictive.
Seepersad also called on the Judiciary to issue a practice direction over the issue to avoid confusion for other judicial officers.
“Clarity is always preferred,” Seepersad said.
Sutton was represented by Joseph Sookoo and Delicia Helwig-Robertson while Rajeev Persad and Brent James represented Mohammed.