Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh on Monday overturned a decision by Magistrate Dylon Bess to dismiss four money laundering charges for want of prosecution in a case where a quartet had been accused of silver plating 240 ounces of gold and attempting to smuggle it through CJIA.
Justice Singh found that the prosecution had relied on information provided by court staff regarding the adjourned hearing date and should not have been penalised without first being afforded an opportunity to explain its absence.
The ruling was disclosed yesterday in a statement from the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), which said Justice Singh granted judicial review on June 29, quashing the magistrate’s decision and awarding the agency $50,000 in costs.
The criminal charges, which were instituted by SOCU in July 2024, were brought against Ian Jacobis, Ashiana Salamalay, Shameena Ahmad and Shafee Ahmad. They are accused of money laundering contrary to Section 3(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act.
According to SOCU, the matters were reassigned to Magistrate Bess in February this year after previously being before another court. The cases were then adjourned to April 14, 2026, for a ruling on a preliminary legal issue.
However, SOCU said that when its prosecutors attended court on April 14, they were informed by the clerk that Magistrate Bess had proceeded on special leave following the death of his father and that a new hearing date would be assigned.
The agency further stated that on April 20, prosecutors were advised by the court-assigned clerk that all four matters had been adjourned to June 4, 2026.
Despite that information, Magistrate Bess dismissed all four charges on May 6 for want of prosecution.
Unfair
In its judicial review application, SOCU argued that the dismissals were procedurally unfair because they were made in the absence of the prosecution and without any notice that the matters had been brought forward from June 4 to May 6. The agency contended that the magistrate acted improperly, irrationally and arbitrarily by dismissing the charges without first hearing from prosecutors or determining why they were absent.
According to the statement, Magistrate Bess explained during the judicial review proceedings that he had instructed defence attorney Latchmie Rahamat to notify the prosecution that the matters had been fixed for May 6.
The magistrate said Rahamat later informed the court that repeated attempts had been made to contact SOCU prosecutors but that the prosecution appeared to have abandoned the matters. She subsequently applied for the charges to be dismissed for want of prosecution, an application which the magistrate granted.
SOCU, however, maintained that its prosecutors were never contacted by the defence and were never informed that the matters had been scheduled for hearing on May 6. Instead, prosecutors said they continued to rely on the information communicated by the court office that the cases had been adjourned to June 4.
Examining
In examining the circumstances, Justice Singh noted that the April adjournment had not been for the purpose of hearing evidence or advancing the prosecution’s case, but rather to allow the magistrate to consider earlier pre-trial rulings. As a result, the prosecution could not be said to have delayed the proceedings or failed to actively pursue the matters.
Secondly, Justice Singh observed that Magistrate Bess did not sit on April 14 because of his special leave and that the prosecution therefore had no opportunity to appear before him on that date.
The Chief Justice also accepted that prosecutors had been informed by court staff that the matters were adjourned until June 4 and said their absence on May 6 could reasonably have resulted from their reliance on information supplied by the court’s own administrative staff.
In his ruling, Justice Singh said a dismissal for want of prosecution generally presupposes some culpable failure on the part of the prosecution to diligently pursue a matter.
“If the prosecution was genuinely informed by the court office that the matter was adjourned to June 4th, then the absence on May 6th was arguably induced by the court administration itself,” the Chief Justice reasoned, according to SOCU’s statement.
The court further held that judicial officers should ordinarily be reluctant to penalise litigants for relying on information provided by court staff, particularly where that information relates to adjourned hearing dates.
Justice Singh said fairness required the magistrate to inquire into the reason for the prosecution’s absence before taking the drastic step of dismissing the charges. Such an inquiry, he said, should have included determining whether proper notice of the May 6 hearing had been given, whether prosecutors were actually aware of the new date, and whether their absence resulted from genuine neglect or administrative confusion.
The immediate dismissal of the matters without those inquiries, the court found, was inconsistent with the requirements of procedural fairness.
The Acting Chief Justice therefore granted an order of certiorari quashing the magistrate’s decision and ordered that SOCU be awarded costs in the sum of $50,000.
SOCU was represented in the proceedings by attorneys-at-law and prosecutors David Brathwaite and Darin Chan. Magistrate Bess was represented by State Counsel from the Attorney General’s Chambers, while the four respondents were represented by defence attorney Rahamat.
The ruling clears the way for the money laundering proceedings against Jacobis, Salamalay, Shameena Ahmad and Shafee Ahmad to continue before the courts.
On the day in question, officers of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) seized a large quantity of gold jewellery from three passengers, who were attempting to leave on an American Airlines flight bound for New York, USA.
According to a release, the operation, which was fully supported by officers of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MoNR), and the Customs Anti-Narcotic Unit (CANU), led to the discovery of approximately 240 ounces of virtually pure gold disguised as silver-plated jewellery, intended to be shipped out of the country without the necessary permits and declaration to customs officials. The gold was valued at over US$560,000.
The three passengers were Jacobis, Salamalay and Shameena Ahmad.
Discussion