Motor vehicle inspector loses lawsuit against magistrate

A motor vehicle inspector has lost his judicial-review claim over his committal on two charges related to an alleged transfer of a stolen vehicle.

In a decision on Tuesday, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed Valmiki Ramjattan’s lawsuit against magistrate Adia Mohammed, who committed him to stand trial on December 20, 2022.

Ramjattan was among six people charged with alleged fraud in 2019. Two were discharged the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the charges against them.

Ramjattan was charged with conspiring with his co-accused to defraud the Licensing Division and misconducting themselves by signing a fraudulent change-of-ownership form for the transfer of the vehicle and falsely representing that the division had lawfully examined the vehicle, a Hyundai Tucson.

After prosecutors closed their case, Ramjattan’s lawyers made a no-case submission, which Mohammed rejected, and committed him to stand trial for conspiracy to defraud the State and misbehaviour in public office. He was granted bail.

In his judicial-review claim, Ramjattan sought to have Seepersad quash or set aside the magistrate’s decision to dismiss his no-case submission and his committal.

His attorneys argued that the magistrate made several errors in law and acted irrationally and contrary to the evidence when she found a prima-facie case had been made out against him.

It was further argued that Mohammed erred when she found the prosecution presented evidence of an agreement involving him to commit a criminal act.

Ramjattan’s other challenges involved the evidence related to the alleged transfer of the vehicle and the legislative requirements governing such processes.

“In the case of the applicant, the only alleged criminal act committed by him was that he signed the said form, signifying that he had verified the chassis number on the said vehicle.

“Moreover, the alleged act – that the applicant signed verifying the chassis number of the said vehicle – is not a criminal act.”

However, in his ruling Seepersad assessed the evidence the magistrate considered in arriving at her decisions and said it was “patently obvious” there was evidence before her to support the charges.

“The intended respondent reviewed the evidence and concluded that a prima-facie case had been made out.

He said he could find no basis to quash her decisions, as there was evidence on which they could have been made, he ruled as he dismissed Ramjattan’s claim.

Before doing so, the judge also had to determine whether Ramjattan had an arguable case and should have been granted leave to pursue it.

The magistrate’s attorneys had argued Ramjattan had alternative remedies: to file a motion to quash his indictment, or challenge his committal by asking the DPP to review the evidence.

Noting that no indictment had yet been filed, Seepersad referred to the lack of staff at the Office of the DPP, which, he said, has resulted in very few indictments being filed annually.

Hence he did not believe filing a motion to quash an indictment or writing to the DPP "can pragmatically be viewed as options which stand as convenient, expeditious or effective alternative remedies to which the applicant has recourse.

“Further, with respect to the suggestion that the DPP can be written to, the court observes that there exists no statutory framework which provides for the making of a request by someone who has been committed to stand trial, to invite the DPP not to indict him.

“It is also evident that the Office of the DPP resisted the applicant’s no-case submission and it is plausible to conclude that the existing status quo would be likely unaltered even if the DPP (had been) written to.”

Calling for financial and human resources for the DPP’s office, he said given its current state, it could be several years before an indictment is filed against Ramjattan.

“Any motion to then quash same would, thereafter, have to be managed and determined by the docketed judicial officer.”

Although he dismissed Ramjattan’s substantive arguments, he did grant him leave to pursue the claim, as the case before him was a rolled-up hearing. This means arguments for leave were included with the arguments on the claim.

He said while judicial-review courts could not and should not act as appellate courts, they could only exercise their judicial discretion in exceptional circumstances.

“This court is mindful that a judicial review court, itself, has its limitations and caution has to be exercised so as to ensure that there isn't an avalanche of matters to review the decisions of magistrates who commit individuals to stand trial for criminal offences.

“Lawyers must also act responsibly and...focus should be primarily fixed upon procedural irregularities, situations of illegality and/ or patent unreasonableness.

“Judicial review of committal decisions must be viewed as the exception and not the norm.”

Ramjattan was ordered to pay the magistrate’s costs.

He was represented by Michael Rooplal, Kristy Mohan, and Vishan Girwar. Rajiv Persad, SC, represented the magistrate.