Home » Posts » Civil court orders State to pay almost $100 000 for breach of murder accused’s Constitutional right

Civil court orders State to pay almost $100 000 for breach of murder accused’s Constitutional right

by Fernella Wedderburn
5 min read
A+A-
Reset

A civil court judge has called for strict timelines to be set for hearing all criminal matters as she awarded a murder accused $95 000 for the 14-year delay in having his matter heard, and ruled that his case should be dismissed.

Madam Justice Cicely Chase Q.C. ruled on Tuesday that Larry Patrick Agard’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed and, as such, awarded him $85 000 in damages as compensation along with $10 000 for vindicatory breach.

Her decision was based on the fact that while Agard was charged for the June 8, 2006 murder of Marville John and was committed to stand trial in 2011, when the constitutional claim was filed on his behalf in 2020, he was still awaiting his day in the High Court.

“State agents must actively engage in case management and must also ensure that there is a speedy disposal of criminal matters, from charge to trial and even to appeal of sentence,” Justice Chase ruled.

She added that timelines should be implemented – for example, in six-month stages – and strictly followed by all parties involved in the administration of justice.

“These proposed guidelines will ensure that delay is diminished from arrest and/or detention to . . . trial and sentencing or acquittal.

“[It] would also ensure the speedy disposal of criminal matters and encourage those involved in the administration of justice to adopt a practical and efficient approach to the handling of criminal matters,” the judge said.

In Agard’s case, Justice Chase ruled that the time it had been taking to adjudicate his case was “unreasonable in all of the circumstances”, as she stressed that “a speedy trial was imperative to meet the demands of justice for such a serious charge”.

Against that background, she redirected his matter to the High Court for consideration to be given for the case to be dismissed, saying that to force him to stand trial at this juncture would “render injustice with injustice”.

Through his attorneys, Larry Smith Q.C. and Jamila Smith, Agard went to the civil court to challenge the extremely long delay in having his matter heard, and argued that it would be impossible to get a fair trial at this juncture.

Ruling in Agard’s favour, Justice Chase noted that the preliminary inquiry in his case in the magistrates’ court lasted four years, and although he was committed to the Criminal Assizes in 2011, he is still awaiting trial.

Furthermore, the judge highlighted, between that committal and when she first heard arguments in the constitutional motion, the State continued to engage in further delays without reasonable explanation.

“The court did not seize the opportunity to ensure that the claimant was brought before the court . . . in a timely manner, either at the stage of preliminary inquiry or at the stage of the High Court,” Justice Chase pointed out.

The judge rejected the State’s position that Agard’s constitutional rights were not breached and he should have to stand trial for John’s murder, although acknowledging that the accused had also contributed to the delay by asking for time to secure an attorney.

“This court is of the opinion that 14 years [is] an inordinate amount of time for a criminal matter to linger in the criminal justice system without adjudication of the said matter . . . ,” she ruled.

Justice Chase acknowledged that the court had considered the fact that a life had been lost and if the evidence could prove that Agard had in fact caused John’s death, the victim and his family would not have received appropriate justice.

“This is all the more reason why this matter should not have languished in the system for so long and the claimant should have been brought to justice speedily. Justice delayed is justice denied,” she contended.

The judge, therefore, ordered that the murder charge “be redirected to the trial court in the criminal division before the presiding judge for consideration of breaches of the claimant’s constitutional rights, such that a fair trial would not be possible in all of the given circumstances, and that further due consideration ought to be given to the dismissal of this case forthwith, pursuant to Section 24 of the Constitution”.

In reacting to the ruling, Queen’s Counsel Smith said it was a prime example of the legal system working “in the face of highly unfortunate circumstances”.

“There was an injustice to our client. That injustice was acknowledged by the court. The court, as vanguard of the fundamental rights and freedoms of our Constitution, remedied the infringements of those rights. The fundamental rights and freedoms in our Constitution are sacrosanct. We must value and treat them as such, especially within the justice system,” he said.

In her judgement, Justice Chase also awarded costs to Agard’s attorneys.

fernellawedderburn@barbadostoday.bb

You may also like

About Us

Barbados Today logos white-14

The (Barbados) Today Inc. is a privately owned, dynamic and innovative Media Production Company.

Useful Links

Get Our News

Newsletter

Subscribe my Newsletter for new blog posts, tips & new photos. Let's stay updated!

Barbados Today logos white-14

The (Barbados) Today Inc. is a privately owned, dynamic and innovative Media Production Company.

BT Lifestyle

Newsletter

Subscribe my Newsletter for new blog posts, tips & new photos. Let's stay updated!

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Accept Privacy Policy

-
00:00
00:00
Update Required Flash plugin
-
00:00
00:00