There was no evidence to prosecute them, you nah undastand. 

Go asked your brothers at Congress Place who gazette the laws. 

The judge made a big error in judgement and should be fired. The argument from the defence lawyers was that no such position exists in law, which is obviously incorrect. 

Mr.T posted:

The judge made a big error in judgement and should be fired. The argument from the defence lawyers was that no such position exists in law, which is obviously incorrect. 

After reading this, let us know who should be fired.

Junior Finance Minister, Jaipaul Sharma has criticised police investigators and legal experts for instituting the wrong charge against former Public Service Minister, Dr. Jennifer Westford and her Administrative Officer, Margaret Cummings who were freed of a GY$600 million charge of larceny by public officer.

Speaking on Saturday’s edition of Voice of the People on his television station, CNSTV6, Sharma urged the Police Commissioner, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Hack and Police Legal Adviser, Retired Justice Claudette Singh to seek his advice before filing such charges.

“The Commissioner of Police, the Police Legal Adviser, to the DPP, to the CID (Criminal Investigations Department) – please be careful, be sensitive and hear, just come to my office, ask me for my advice or where or how we should create that charge and I’m going to say ‘put it that way’ because this is a charge,” he said.

He said Westford and Cummings should not have been charged with 24 counts of larceny by public officer but under the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act for the alleged theft of GY$639,420,000 belonging to the Guyana government between 2011 and 2015.

The Junior Finance Minister urged the State to appeal last Friday’s decision by Principal Magistrate, Judy Latchman to dismiss the charge on the basis that Westford was not a public officer in keeping with Guyana’s Constitution. “I hope that this matter is appealed because it is sending the wrong message,” he said.

The State has 14 days within which to file an appeal.

He feared that if the investigators and legal experts do not perform their duties efficiently, the State would not get justice for huge amounts of monies and properties that were allegedly stolen. “We would not be able to do anything because we are putting charges that will be fading in court but this is a disgrace to those investigators- CID, Guyana Police Force, the Commissioner of Police, the Police Legal Adviser and the DPP,” he said.

The Court, nevertheless, found that Westford had collected the monies from Cummings, but there was no evidence that Cummings had spent any. While Cummings’ name appeared on the memoranda, she did not sign.

The majority of the State’s witnesses had testified that did not know of several activities such as training sessions and social activities in the 10 administrative regions for which the monies had been acquired.

Dave, is Jaipaul a lawyer?

Westford, former aide cleared in $600M theft

Source

August 25 2018

Former government minister Dr Jennifer Westford and her former aide Margaret Cummings were yesterday freed of the 24 larceny charges of larceny by a public officer that were laid against them for the alleged theft of over $600 million while in government.

Among the reasons given by Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman for the dismissal of the charges against Westford was that they were “bad in law,” since she was not a public officer. Her finding, if unchallenged by an appeal, could see other pending charges against Westford for allegedly attempting to steal state vehicles being dismissed.

The joint charges against Westford and Cummings, who was the Personnel Officer at the former ministry under the former PPP/C government, stated that between the period October 19th, 2011 and April 28th, 2015, while being employed with the former Public Service Ministry, they stole a total of $639,420,000, belonging to the Government of Guyana, which they received by virtue of employment.

The money was said to have been requested for activities to be conducted in the 10 administrative regions.

Magistrate Latchman noted that during the course of the trial, the prosecution presented a total of 48 witnesses, including 10 representatives of the 10 administrative regions.

Referring to the evidence given by the 10 witnesses, Magistrate Latchman noted that all of them, except the representative of Region Five, gave similar evidence in which they stated that could not remember during the 2011 to 2015 period if Westford and a team of public servants went into their regions, conducted performance reviews, staff conferences, performance evaluation exercises for scholarship awardees, year-end reviews, skills-based assessments or change acceptance workshops, in keeping with aims and objectives of public service.

The witnesses stated that they never attended any such workshops or any exercise led by Westford and a team.

However, the witness attached to the Region Five Regional Democratic Council during the period in question said from time to time Westford and her staff would go to the region and conduct different kinds of training. The witness added that he was physically present at some of the training programmes held during the period.

Magistrate Latchman then stated that there was evidence in the form of 24 memorandums, which were signed by Westford, proving that she requested funds during the 2011 to 2015 period. She further stated that there was evidence to prove that Cummings collected the money. However, the magistrate said the witnesses from the various regions saying they could not recall the activities being carried out brought some uncertainties to the prosecution’s case.

In the case of Westford, Magistrate Latchman said the court did not find prima facie evidence that she was a public officer at the time, as defined in the Interpretation and General Clauses Act. The magistrate went on to say that Westford was not appointed by the Public Service Commission but by the president, which does not make her a public officer. “In these circumstances I find that at the material time, Dr Jennifer Westford was not a public officer. Since all the charges against Jennifer Westford are for larceny by public officer, I find them all bad in law,” she stated.

As it relates to Cummings, the court did find prima facie evidence that she was a public officer, that she worked for Westford, that she collected the funds and that returned same to the minister’s office. Cummings’ name also appeared on the memorandums as the coordinator of the activities planned for the regions, however her signature did not. The magistrate said there was no evidence that Cummings agreed to coordinate the events mentioned on the memorandums and there was also no evidence that she was authorized to spend the cash and that she did so.

As a result, the magistrate subsequently dismissed the charges and told both Westford and Cummings they were free to go. Both women are still facing charges of allegedly attempting to steal state vehicles and forgery. The charges against Westford allege that between July 17th, 2014 and June 23rd, 2015, while being employed as a public servant by the Government of Guyana, she attempted to transfer several government-owned vehicles to herself and others. These persons include her husband, Gary Beaton, as well as Wayne Walker and Delroy Lewis. Cummings, meanwhile, is charged with forging several receipts to show that the vehicles were purchased by Beaton, Walker, Lewis and Westford. The women have denied the charges.

Dave,

Please read the Stabroek News article,tell us if the Magistrate erred.

Mr.T posted:

The judge made a big error in judgement and should be fired. The argument from the defence lawyers was that no such position exists in law, which is obviously incorrect. 

Magistrate Judy Latchman seems to have a different interpretation,defined in the Interpretation and General Clauses Act.

Mitwah posted:

Dave, is Jaipaul a lawyer?

No, he’s a chatter box... like he father. This guy had resign from APNU sometime in 2014 and is always critical of the police investigation.

Jaipaul wife is a lawyer Marcia Nadir Jaipaul 

Django posted:

Dave,

Please read the Stabroek News article,tell us if the Magistrate erred.

I did... 

be reminded Django Private criminal charges were discontinued by the DPP by way of Article 187 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana against two current government minister. 

The ladies were given due process and the judge made her decision. Whether it was in error or not, like everything else in Guyana, live with it. I don't see some of you criticising the judiciary for not bringing up the election recount case. I am also surprised that the PNC supporters are disappointed that two black women are not in jail. I wonder if these women support the PNC if there would have been a similar reaction.

skeldon_man posted:

 I am also surprised that the PNC supporters are disappointed that two black women are not in jail. 

wannabe klansmen like you will (continue to) never understand

it's the natural projection of an ignorant bigot that prompts revelatory posts like yours above

Dave posted:

Django posted:

Dave,

Please read the Stabroek News article,tell us if the Magistrate erred.

I did... 

be reminded Django Private criminal charges were discontinued by the DPP by way of Article 187 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana against two current government minister. 

What's the correlation to the with held charges and the grounds for dismissal ?

skeldon_man posted:

The ladies were given due process and the judge made her decision. Whether it was in error or not, like everything else in Guyana, live with it. I don't see some of you criticising the judiciary for not bringing up the election recount case. I am also surprised that the PNC supporters are disappointed that two black women are not in jail. I wonder if these women support the PNC if there would have been a similar reaction.

Skelly,nothing to do with Afro Guyanese women nor their party affiliation.The questions are there different interpretation of the Laws for Public Officers,whom are Ministers of Gov't..etc.

I mentioned awhile back their are lots of Mediocre folks in office roaming the homeland.

skeldon_man posted:

The ladies were given due process and the judge made her decision. Whether it was in error or not, like everything else in Guyana, live with it. I don't see some of you criticising the judiciary for not bringing up the election recount case. I am also surprised that the PNC supporters are disappointed that two black women are not in jail. I wonder if these women support the PNC if there would have been a similar reaction.

There is the always the appeal process. I don't care about their ethnicities.

Mitwah posted:

skeldon_man posted:

The ladies were given due process and the judge made her decision. Whether it was in error or not, like everything else in Guyana, live with it. I don't see some of you criticising the judiciary for not bringing up the election recount case. I am also surprised that the PNC supporters are disappointed that two black women are not in jail. I wonder if these women support the PNC if there would have been a similar reaction.

There is the always the appeal process. I don't care about their ethnicities.

This case should be appealed.

Any appeal will result in the same outcome. The state has 14 days to appeal.

AFC/PNC shyting their pants with trumped up charges right now. The PNC implemented those laws, it is coming back to haunt them.

Dave posted:

There was no evidence to prosecute them, you nah undastand. 

Go asked your brothers at Congress Place who gazette the laws. 

Dem bai hard ears.

yuji22 posted:

Dave posted:

There was no evidence to prosecute them, you nah undastand. 

Go asked your brothers at Congress Place who gazette the laws. 

Dem bai hard ears.

Perhaps I missed it.  Where is it stated that's the reason for dismissal? And why did the DPP approved it for prosecution?

Pose those questions to Ramjattan and Moses. All you clutching to straws.

The state has 14 days to appeal. 

yuji22 posted:

The state has 14 days to appeal. 

Thanks for reminding them.

These jackasses can't accept court decision, so now they attacking the magistrate. Sloppy boy and he bass Lillymohan used to bray day and night how they gun lock up PPP thieves when they get into power. Now these same two boys grovelling for PNC leftovers as all they got out of the deal was title of slop can carriers. 

This case renders most of what SARA and SOCU are doing as being useless. The PNC created those laws and now those very laws are coming back to haunt them.

Political witch hunting was dealt a severe blow. SARA and SOCU should not be used as political instruments.

It would be wise for the AFC/PNC to save themselves from further embarrassment. 

Short Bia, should drop a multi billion dollar lawsuit against them after his case is thrown out.

Drugb posted:

These jackasses can't accept court decision, so now they attacking the magistrate. Sloppy boy and he bass Lillymohan used to bray day and night how they gun lock up PPP thieves when they get into power. Now these same two boys grovelling for PNC leftovers as all they got out of the deal was title of slop can carriers. 

The real jackass is the one who liked your jackassery post. 

Mitwah posted:

Drugb posted:

These jackasses can't accept court decision, so now they attacking the magistrate. Sloppy boy and he bass Lillymohan used to bray day and night how they gun lock up PPP thieves when they get into power. Now these same two boys grovelling for PNC leftovers as all they got out of the deal was title of slop can carriers. 

The real jackass is the one who liked your jackassery post. 

Bannas, there is a fellow hey who call heself tamesh the warrior, don't mek ah complain to him to manners you when addressing the great drugb.  

Drugb posted:

Mitwah posted:

Drugb posted:

These jackasses can't accept court decision, so now they attacking the magistrate. Sloppy boy and he bass Lillymohan used to bray day and night how they gun lock up PPP thieves when they get into power. Now these same two boys grovelling for PNC leftovers as all they got out of the deal was title of slop can carriers. 

The real jackass is the one who liked your jackassery post. 

Bannas, there is a fellow hey who call heself tamesh the warrior, don't mek ah complain to him to manners you when addressing the great drugb.  

Jacky, I see another jacko liked your jackassery post. 

Mitwah posted:

Drugb posted:

Mitwah posted:

Drugb posted:

These jackasses can't accept court decision, so now they attacking the magistrate. Sloppy boy and he bass Lillymohan used to bray day and night how they gun lock up PPP thieves when they get into power. Now these same two boys grovelling for PNC leftovers as all they got out of the deal was title of slop can carriers. 

The real jackass is the one who liked your jackassery post. 

Bannas, there is a fellow hey who call heself tamesh the warrior, don't mek ah complain to him to manners you when addressing the great drugb.  

Jacky, I see another jacko liked your jackassery post. 

I just got a notification in my inbox that you was the jacko that liked my post. 

Laws of Guyana

Interpretation and General Clauses

Chapter 2:01

Source -- http://www.oas.org/juridico/sp...terpretation_act.pdf

(5) In this section “public officer” includes the President, a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary and “specified public officer”means the person for the time being holding any public office which has been specified, either generally or for the purposes of a particular Act, under this section by the President by notice in the Gazette.