Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A man accused of sexual offences against a minor has lost his appeal against a High Court Master’s refusal to discharge him after prosecutors missed deadlines for filing evidence.
In a decision delivered yesterday, Appellate Judges Mark Mohammed and Geoffrey Henderson dismissed the appeal, which centred on criminal justice reform under the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, 2011 (AJIPA) and the Criminal Procedure Rules.
Delivering the panel’s ruling, Justice Henderson stated: “The Master’s exercise of discretion was reasonable, lawful, and consistent with the proper administration of justice.”
The accused had been charged with four offences involving a 13-year-old girl prior to the proclamation of AJIPA in December 2023.
The legislation was introduced to replace lengthy preliminary inquiries before magistrates with more expedited sufficiency hearings before High Court Masters, prior to matters proceeding to trial.
The case was transferred from the Arima District Court to a High Court Master, who set a deadline for prosecutors to file the indictment and supporting evidence, and fixed a sufficiency hearing for April 30, 2024.
After missing the deadline and failing to apply for an extension, prosecutors faced applications from the man’s attorneys to have the case dismissed for non-compliance. Those applications were refused, prompting the appeal.
While Justice Henderson noted that the Master ought to have provided fuller reasons for her decision, he said her oral ruling was sufficient to allow appellate review.
“This is not a case where there is insufficient material to determine the Master’s reasons and for an appellate court to consider the applications afresh,” he said.
He found that the Master retained the discretion to grant an extension of time, even though no formal application had been made before the deadline elapsed.
“It was, therefore, within the wide powers given to the Master to grant an extension of time to comply with the scheduling order where there was non-compliance,” he said.
Justice Henderson also found that the Master’s decision was grounded in relevant considerations.
“In both applications, the Master considered the reasons advanced by the prosecutor for failing to meet the deadlines and whether the appellant would suffer prejudice if either application was granted,” he said.
He noted that the accused would have been aware of the allegations at the time he was charged, and that witness statements—though filed late—had already been disclosed prior to the matter being transferred. He also pointed out that the man had been granted bail pending trial.
Justice Henderson rejected the argument that prosecutors should have been sanctioned for their delay.
“I find that the power of the court to impose sanctions is discretionary. The Master was not obligated under Rule 5.9(1) to impose sanctions, particularly during the rollout of AJIPA, where ‘teething issues’ could reasonably be expected and rigid sanctions might operate unjustly,” he said.
“Sanctions may be appropriately employed by a Master to achieve the purpose of the legislative scheme, but the decision not to impose them does not undermine that scheme,” he added.
Justice Henderson also underscored the critical role of High Court Masters in ensuring the effectiveness of AJIPA.
“In this case, the Master had to make decisions within a newly implemented legislative framework that resulted in the transfer of numerous matters simultaneously,” he said.
“How Masters carefully calibrate the exercise of their discretion in achieving the overriding objective of dealing with criminal matters justly will determine whether AJIPA is successful.”
The accused was represented by Peter Carter, Yves Jacques Nicholson and Mariah Ramrattan, while Danielle Thompson appeared for the State.
