Senior Reporter
A Chaguanas man has suffered a second legal setback in his challenge against a magistrate’s decision to adjourn his drunk driving trial despite delays in prosecution.
In a ruling delivered late last week, appellate judges Nolan Bereaux, Mark Mohammed and Maria Wilson dismissed an appeal brought by Stefan Hearn, upholding an earlier High Court decision which rejected his claim.
Hearn was charged with driving over the legal alcohol limit on July 24, 2020. He pleaded not guilty and was granted bail.
The matter was called 12 times, with the final hearing date set for trial in October 2023. However, despite a request by Hearn’s attorneys in June 2022 for disclosure of evidence needed to prepare his defence, the material was not provided in time.
Additionally, the police officer who charged Hearn was absent on the trial date due to attendance at a training course.
Magistrate Ali granted an adjournment and dismissed an application by Hearn to be discharged on the basis of the delays.
The criminal proceedings were subsequently stayed while Hearn pursued judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.
In May 2024, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed the claim, ruling that the magistrate’s handling of the matter could not be faulted. He found that she had considered relevant factors, including the case history, the prosecution’s explanation, the seriousness of the offence and the public interest.
“Having reviewed the defendant’s reasons, it is clear that she systematically evaluated all the important and relevant considerations before electing to adjourn the matter,” Justice Seepersad stated.
“Although the defendant did make a few missteps, those were not fundamental and do not justify a finding that she acted unreasonably,” he added, noting that the five-and-a-half-month adjournment was not excessive.
In dismissing the appeal, Justice Bereaux rejected arguments that Justice Seepersad had applied the wrong standard of review.
He held that the High Court judge properly assessed the magistrate’s reasoning and concluded that her discretion had been exercised appropriately.
“Where, as here, the magistrate has properly exercised her discretion, it is not for this court, or the High Court on an application for judicial review, to question the correctness of that decision. That is not this court’s function,” Justice Bereaux said.
While he described the police officer’s decision to attend a training course instead of court as “inconceivable,” Justice Bereaux noted that the magistrate’s ruling was not based solely on that explanation.
“She was entitled to take a contrary view. Even if the reason for the complainant’s absence was weak, the other factors considered by the magistrate were sufficient to outweigh it,” he said.
He added that although the magistrate did not explicitly address the interests of the accused and the need to avoid delay, she did consider the public interest in having the matter determined on its merits.
As part of the judgment, Justice Bereaux also criticised the practice of calling magistrates to give evidence and be cross-examined in related judicial review proceedings.
“The practice is flawed and should be abandoned,” he said, emphasising that a magistrate’s duty is limited to providing reasons for their decision.
He said abandoning the practice would help preserve judicial neutrality.
“In this way, the independence and impartiality of the magistracy remain inviolate,” Justice Bereaux stated.
Hearn was represented by Lee Merry, SC, Kelston Pope and Ashleigh Motilal. The magistrate was represented by Tinuke Gibbons-Glenn and Janique Mitchell.
