High Court Judge Priscilla Chandra-Hanif has refused an application by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking her recusal from the case against four men accused of the September 2020 murder of 17-year-old Haresh Singh.
The application arose from Justice Chandra-Hanif’s decision to sever the trial of the first-named accused from that of the three other accused.
Following that ruling, the DPP first asked the Judge to reconsider her decision. After that application was refused, the State sought her recusal from the case on the grounds of “the appearance of a likelihood of bias.”
The State argued that there was a real possibility that issues reserved for trial had been prejudged, particularly the credibility of disputed identification and alibi evidence, as well as a caution statement attributed to the first-named accused.
However, in her ruling yesterday, Justice Chandra-Hanif rejected the argument, finding that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered her judgment as a whole and within its proper procedural context, would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.
The Judge said relying on isolated words or phrases from a judgment, without considering the context in which they were made, could distort their meaning and create “unnecessary theatrics.”
“Most importantly, the ultimate assessment of identification evidence, alibi evidence, witness credibility and guilt in the contemplated trial is not of the judge. It belongs to the jury,” Justice Chandra-Hanif ruled.
She also noted that recusal has consequences for the administration of justice, and said public confidence in the judiciary would not be served by treating every strongly contested ruling as grounds for a judge’s disqualification.
“Judges are required to decide difficult applications, sometimes adversely to one party, and to give intelligent reasons,” she said.
Justice Chandra-Hanif added that if judges could be disqualified simply because they gave reasons for decisions on severance applications, ordinary criminal case management would become unworkable.
She ultimately found that she was not satisfied that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered all the relevant facts and the proper procedural context, would conclude that the Court was biased or had prejudged matters reserved for the trial.
In reaching her decision, the Judge considered submissions from both the State and the Defence, the issues raised in the recusal application, several legal authorities, comparative authorities dealing with juries and prejudgment, and the applicable legal test.
The DPP’s recusal application was filed on Tuesday, shortly after Justice Chandra-Hanif ruled that the first-named accused should be tried separately from the three other accused.
During a pre-trial hearing that day, Defence Attorneys strongly objected to the State’s application, describing it as “contemptuous,” “despicable” and a “malicious attempt” to attack the reputation of the Court.
Seventeen-year-old Singh, also known as ‘Raj’, of Lot 8, Number 3 Village, West Coast Berbice, was found with head injuries and chop wounds along the No. 2 Village backdam on September 9, 2020.
Singh left home on his motorcycle to tend to his farm in the backdam of No. 3 Village. Sometime after, his relatives saw smoke rising from the backdam and left to investigate. They discovered the body of Singh lying motionless. His nose was bleeding. His motorcycle had also been burnt.
Four men were later charged over his murder. They are Glaston Henry; 29-year-old Philip Anderson called ‘Ratman’ both of #3 Village, West Coast Berbice; 27-year-old Joel Gittins called ‘Bolo’ of Jangotown, North Mon Repos, East Coast Demerara; and 21-year-old Charles Scott called ‘Bucko’ of Jarvis Street, Rosignol, Berbice.
Discussion