A.P.N.U PRESS STATEMENT THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE ON RAPE CHARGE AGAINST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE A Partnership for National Unity (A.P.N.U) renews its call for Police Commissioner Henry Greene to be removed from office. In renewing our call we wish to remind the Guyanese public that having passed the age of retirement Mr. Greene is no longer the constitutional holder of the office of Commissioner of Police rather he is an employee/servant of the Government and as such he can be removed forthwith. As he continues to occupy the office of Commissioner of Police, Mr. Greene has no more security of tenure than Mr. Freddie Kissoon has had at the University of Guyana. While Commissioner Greene may have temporarily succeeded in having a rape charge against him blocked, the fact is that he has admitted to having sex with a female citizen who went to him for help in his official capacity as Commissioner of Police is serious misconduct which should have been met with immediate removal. We strongly disagree with the ruling of the Honourable Chief Justice Ian Chang in this matter but we are confident that, given a recent ruling by the Privy Council, the Honourable Chief Justice’s decision will be overturned. A Partnership for National Unity is constrained to place on record our dismay and disappointment at the several disparaging statements attributed to the Chief Justice on the character of the alleged victim and his apparent lack of sensitivity and knowledge revealed by his statements. On the issue of the character of the alleged victim the Honourable Chief Justice’s statement that the alleged victim “had a Blackberry Curve cell phone but yet had no money to feed her children” (SN 30.3/2012) and that she accepted food from the Commissioner of Police after the alleged rape were absolutely irrelevant and must be condemned. On the issue of the Chief Justice’s lack of sensitivity he must be aware that progressive countries, recognising that the trial of sexual offences often turns out to be the hardest on the victims, have enacted victim friendly legislation empowering Courts inter alia to hold trial in camera and also forbid the publication of reports of certain details of the alleged act. Rather than adhere to these modern principles the Honourable Chief Justice quite happily read to the packed court room and by extension the entire country all the gory details of the alleged rape. What a travesty! The fallout from the posture taken by the Honourable Chief Justice will undoubtedly further cower already traumatized women and reinforce their belief that our judicial system is unconcerned about them. On the issue of the behaviour of the alleged victim after the alleged incident the Honourable Chief Justice seemed to have concluded that the fact that the alleged victim took a week to be assessed by Dr. Joseph and went into the vehicle with the Commissioner of Police after the alleged rape strained her credibility. These statements show a remarkable lack of reading on the part of the Chief Justice on how women and children react to the barbaric offence of rape. Thursday the 29th day of March, 2012 will remain a black day for all right thinking people of Guyana. We trust that the Director of Public Prosecutions will appeal the decision of the Honourable Chief Justice and we trust that the Government of Guyana will act now and remove the Commissioner of Police from office. A Partnership for National Unity Office of the Leader of the Opposition 61 Cross & Hadfield Streets Werk-en-Rust Georgetown Guyana |
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Using this case merely to gain political mileage. Just think about APNU's stance on other major cases involving kidnapping, murder, and massacres targeted at one racial group. This should not be interpreted as justification of any wrong doing by anyone not affiliated with the AFC or PNC. The point here is the one-sidedness of APNU
Former Member
Political mileage being the aim or not their conclusions are on the mark. The Judge overstepped his bounds. He is asked to rule on the law not assume the cap of a psychiatrist.
Stormborn,
Why opposition supporters like yourself don't make an issue when the courts throw out cases involving murder, arson, and treason on no proper grounds?
Why is it an issue only when it can hurt the gov't politically??
Former Member
You need to adjust your frame of reference from understanding issues only in terms of what benefits the opposition or administration to what is the reasonable argument and what is good for the society.. Nowhere have I referenced party. Actually. I prefaced my statement away from that to highlight its apolitical status.
I do not give a damn if it hurts either party. This man is apparently serial rapist who admits to have a weakness for women and was previously accused of similar infractions by those under his command. He has little credibility and the judge's ruling solely on his perception on the woman's mental states is misogynistic.
He needs sensitivity training and it speaks to why our society ranks very low in the world on woman's issues. It is why the judiciary is also ill equipped to deal with our horrible disease of violence against women. You ought to sign up with the judge as well.
APNU consists f mainly Criminal Elements and they have the balls(SHAMELESSLY) to lecture THe HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE. If that is NOT laughable then what is? They talk about sensitivity but were guilty of raping and molesting Indian women on the Streets of GT. Laad Ah Mercy. They are indeed SHAMELESS.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Billy Ram Balgobin:
Stormborn,
Why opposition supporters like yourself don't make an issue when the courts throw out cases involving murder, arson, and treason on no proper grounds?
Why is it an issue only when it can hurt the gov't politically??
Interesting comment! But didn't the Chief Justice rule against the government in the Green case? After all, the DPP, the agent of the government, recommended that charges should be brought against Green. Green went to the high court on this matter and the CJ ruled against the DPP.
WATAK!!!
Former Member
Originally Posted by Daren David:
Originally Posted by Billy Ram Balgobin:
Stormborn,
Why opposition supporters like yourself don't make an issue when the courts throw out cases involving murder, arson, and treason on no proper grounds?
Why is it an issue only when it can hurt the gov't politically??
Interesting comment! But didn't the Chief Justice rule against the government in the Green case? After all, the DPP, the agent of the government, recommended that charges should be brought against Green. Green went to the high court on this matter and the CJ ruled against the DPP.
That quote is miss-attributed to me.
BTW, the DPP is an agent of the state not the administration.
HEHEHE Brillant. THe GOVT, what is it??? Can you please teach us the meaning of Govt.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Nehru:
HEHEHE Brillant. THe GOVT, what is it??? Can you please teach us the meaning of Govt.
The Government is the entity charged with upholding the social contract within in a social aggregate in a specific, bounded geographically defined entity labeled "the state". Governments have always been where people live in communities even when borders of territories were ill defined as government pertains to a mode of organizing a community. States as we today come to know them today is called "the modern welfare state" and it is an invention barely 250 years old. I do hope this has been helpful in a limited way.
Is the DPP and agency of the Govt??/
Former Member
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Is the DPP and agency of the Govt??/
It is an agency of the state. The law is pervasive in the state covering governments and people. Governments in the modern welfare state are agencies of administration in the state.
The DPP may be appointed by a government but the DPP is an agency that oversees the social contract with respect to the laws of governing and the people in the society.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Is the DPP and agency of the Govt??/
It is an agency of the state. The law is pervasive in the state covering governments and people. Governments in the modern welfare state are agencies of administration in the state.
The DPP may be appointed by a government but the DPP is an agency that oversees the social contract with respect to the laws of governing and the people in the society.
Quite so, but knowing how governments like Guyana and other similar countries operate, the DPP did not take an independent position to recommend charges against Green. The DPP surely would have had to consult the legal authority of the government, i.e. the Attorney General, to get the go-ahead.
Does the state of Guyana has a Govt???
Former Member
Originally Posted by Daren David:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Is the DPP and agency of the Govt??/
It is an agency of the state. The law is pervasive in the state covering governments and people. Governments in the modern welfare state are agencies of administration in the state.
The DPP may be appointed by a government but the DPP is an agency that oversees the social contract with respect to the laws of governing and the people in the society.
Quite so, but knowing how governments like Guyana and other similar countries operate, the DPP did not take an independent position to recommend charges against Green. The DPP surely would have had to consult the legal authority of the government, i.e. the Attorney General, to get the go-ahead.
In modern democracies there are no hierarchical status for rights. They are the domain of all and the agencies of law are so constituted as to preserve that status.
An administration ( since government is also inclusive of an opposition) is covered by the law and the highest officer of the law, the Attorney General is not by definition a member of the administration ie they take instructions from them.
They are instructed by the law and all input from outside sources is or should be in an advisory capacity and not as a directive. Only the law should direct the AG.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Daren David:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Is the DPP and agency of the Govt??/
It is an agency of the state. The law is pervasive in the state covering governments and people. Governments in the modern welfare state are agencies of administration in the state.
The DPP may be appointed by a government but the DPP is an agency that oversees the social contract with respect to the laws of governing and the people in the society.
Quite so, but knowing how governments like Guyana and other similar countries operate, the DPP did not take an independent position to recommend charges against Green. The DPP surely would have had to consult the legal authority of the government, i.e. the Attorney General, to get the go-ahead.
That definition does not apply to Guyana and a host of other countries. In Guyana, the AG is also the Minister of Legal Affairs and is a member of the Cabinet, hence, a member of the administration.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Daren David:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Daren David:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Is the DPP and agency of the Govt??/
It is an agency of the state. The law is pervasive in the state covering governments and people. Governments in the modern welfare state are agencies of administration in the state.
The DPP may be appointed by a government but the DPP is an agency that oversees the social contract with respect to the laws of governing and the people in the society.
Quite so, but knowing how governments like Guyana and other similar countries operate, the DPP did not take an independent position to recommend charges against Green. The DPP surely would have had to consult the legal authority of the government, i.e. the Attorney General, to get the go-ahead.
That definition does not apply to Guyana and a host of other countries. In Guyana, the AG is also the Minister of Legal Affairs and is a member of the Cabinet, hence, a member of the administration.
Again, my point is the AG cannot simply administrate the law as if he/she is a creature of the administration. If that is the case than for what purpose is the view of blind justice ie impartiality in the law?
Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
1,089 online (0 members
/
1,089 guests)