House passes Summary Courts Amendment Bill

An amendment to the Summary Courts Act which removes the requirement for defendants to consent to joining trials in summary judicial matters was passed in the House of Representatives on Friday.

The bill is the Summary Courts (Amendment) Bill, 2021, An Act to amend the Summary Courts Act, Chap. 4:20 to remove the requirement of consent for joinder of complaints in summary judicial matters.

In piloting the bill, Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi said currently magistrates are required to tell defendants who have two or more matters against them that they can have their matters heard separately, and get their consent to have them held together, ie, joinder. He said if the defendants decided that they wanted their matters held separately, this can lead and has led to a bogging down of the judicial system. He said it would lead to an increased speed of summary cases through the courts.

He said the new section provides that when there are two complaints made by at least one or more parties against another party or parties, the complaints can be decided together if the Court finds it appropriate to do so. The section also provides that the court can decide on the complaints in separate proceedings, if required in the interest of justice.

“The effect of this amendment is that it would no longer be required for the defendants to be informed of their right to have the complaints taken separately. The amendment also removes the requirement that the defendants have to consent to the complaints being taken together since it would now be for the court to decide whether there would be separate proceedings.”

Chaguanas West MP Dinesh Rambally said it is common practice, in the courts and common law, for magistrates to exercise joinder without the consent of the defendants. He questioned why it needed to be embodied in legislation.

Port of Spain South MP Keith Scotland said judicial time is often wasted in cases where magistrates have to inform defendants of their rights through their lawyers, as often they have to seek instruction from their clients and then come back to court to report the results.

He said the amendment made it so that defendants cannot appeal the results of a trial if they were not told that they could have their matters tried separately, or if the court decides to hold one trial even after the defendant withholds consent. He also noted that if matters are held separately, magistrates can only hear one matter as there could be an element of bias. He said this was impractical especially in courts where there are a low number of magistrates.

Barataria/San Juan MP Saddam Hosein said while the Opposition agreed with changing the bill, it did not agree that it would have the desired effect of speeding up summary cases.

Laventille West MP Fitzgerald Hinds said in his years of practising law, it was very rare for people to agree to have their matters tried separately, as this led to a longer time in the criminal justice system and increased expense as lawyers had to be hired separately.

He said when defendants did agree to have separate trials, they were usually monied. He said this also gives time to threaten and kill witnesses.

Caroni Central MP Arnold Ram asked why the AG did not give a figure as to how many people did not give their consent to having their matters heard together, but were denied.

The AG said he did not understand the need for antagonistic debate in this matter, as the Opposition could just have agreed to passing the bill.

The amendment was passed with all in favour. The House was adjourned until February 18 at 1.30 pm.