DPP applies to remove judge in Haresh Singh murder trial in Berbice

The State has formally sought the recusal of High Court Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif, alleging bias. Defence attorneys have condemned the motion as "despicable" and "malicious."

State moves to disqualify judge from Haresh Singh murder proceedings

Kaieteur News reports that the State has formally applied for the recusal of High Court Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif from criminal proceedings against four men charged in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana, sitting in the County of Berbice, in connection with the murder of Haresh Singh.

The recusal application was filed by State Counsel Praneta Seeraj and Christopher Belfield from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It follows a ruling made by Justice Chandra-Hanif on August 24, in which she ordered the severance of the trial of first-named accused Phillip Anderson, known as "Rat man," from his three co-accused: Joel Gittens, called "Bolo"; Charles Scott, called "Bucko"; and Glaston Henry, called "Gladwin Henry" or "Soldier man."

The prosecution contends that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there is a real possibility the judge has prejudged critical issues before the trial has run its course.

"The State makes this application acknowledging that recusal is not lightly sought and that disagreement with rulings is ordinarily pursued by way of recall or appeal," the prosecution stated in court documents. The filing argues that a combination of procedural irregularities, errors in law, judicial remarks, and directions encroaching upon prosecutorial discretion "cross the line from robust case management into the appearance of likelihood of bias."

Unadjudicated evidence and voir dire concerns

At the heart of the State's motion is the allegation that Justice Chandra-Hanif improperly weighed unadjudicated evidence before the trial commenced. In her August 24 ruling granting severance, the judge is said to have contrasted alibi evidence from Patricia Henry and Claudeth Kurtzious — neither of whom has yet been cross-examined — with the assumed content of Anderson's unadjudicated caution statement and interview.

The prosecution argued this constitutes an error in law, as the judge relied on the contents of Anderson's caution statement to grant the severance without first holding a voir dire to establish its admissibility. The State cited the precedent case The State v Dookeran (Vernon) et al (1966) in support of that position.

The prosecution also pointed to what it described as "highly prejudicial remarks" made by the judge during her ruling, including a comment that she was unable to hear Demerara criminal matters as a result of the case being transferred to the Berbice assizes. The State argued this suggested the judge viewed the matter as an inconvenience.

Filing deadlines said to compromise fair trial

The prosecution raised further concerns about strict filing deadlines imposed during Case Management Conferences. On August 25 — a national holiday — counsel for Glaston Henry filed written submissions at 6:02 a.m., with the State ordered to respond the following day. Later that same night, at 11:37 p.m., counsel for Charles Scott filed submissions, with the State then directed to respond by 9:00 a.m. the next morning. The prosecution argued these deadlines severely compromised its right to a fair hearing.

The State also took issue with remarks made by Justice Chandra-Hanif regarding the authority to present indictments. When informed that the DPP holds that power, the judge reportedly asserted that the authority lies with the court, adding: "The court will be very happy with this matter having a final resolution all the way because it has been a practice over the years that has caused some concern to the judiciary." The prosecution contends these remarks contradict Section 95 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, Chapter 10:01, and point to potential bias, particularly given that more than three weeks of Case Management Conferences had elapsed without the trial starting.

The State grounded its application in the legal test for bias from Porter v Magill, as adopted by the Caribbean Court of Justice in Lesage v The Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd, and reaffirmed in Minister of Home Affairs v Nazar Mohamed & Azruddin Mohamed, arguing the cumulative effect of the judge's conduct creates a reasonable apprehension of pre-judgment.

Defence condemns application as an attack on the court

The recusal motion has drawn sharp condemnation from the defence. At a pre-trial hearing, defence attorneys described the State's filing as "contemptuous," "despicable," and a "malicious attempt" to assault the reputation of the court.

Legal firm Hughes Fields and Stoby issued a public statement contesting the procedural propriety of the application. "It is a well-established principle of law that the appropriate remedy for a party dissatisfied with a judicial ruling is to appeal that decision to a higher court, not to challenge the impartiality of the presiding judge," the firm stated. "Disagreement with a ruling, however strongly felt, does not in itself give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Perhaps a new day has come in Guyanese jurisprudence."

Justice Chandra-Hanif is expected to deliver her ruling on the recusal application on Friday.

Source: Kaieteur News