Issues over kidnapping bill unresolved
-Gajraj says courts will see law not abused
Stabroek News
June 1, 2003
The Kidnapping Bill is due to have its Second Reading next week even though the government has been unable to resolve the parliamentary opposition’s concerns about its provisions related to the penalties for “wrongful restraint” and “wrongful confinement.”
The bill had its first reading on December 5, and Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj told the Government Information Agency (GINA) that “We cannot blind our eyes to the urgency with which such legislation needs to be put in place.”
The Second Reading was deferred from the last sitting of the parliament to allow the government and the parliamentary opposition the opportunity to resolve their differences. However, Stabroek News understands that while there has been agreement that the penalty for the offences should not involve imprisonment there is concern about the government’s intention to amend the legislation to make the offence of kidnapping one for which bail is not available.
The parliamentary opposition contends that the denial of bail does not accord with the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Last week when he sought the deferral of the Second Reading of the bill, Gajraj informed the National Assembly that he was not in a position to proceed with the Second Reading of the bill as he was still in discussion with the parliamentary opposition about their concerns.
PNCR frontbencher, Deborah Backer told reporters after the sitting that protestors such as the teachers when they were on strike could have been guilty of an offence if their protest prevented persons from leaving their offices or proceeding in a direction in which they wanted to go. She said that under the provisions of the bill as tabled they would be liable, if convicted of a fine in excess of $100,000 and not less than three years in prison, even though they had no intention of abducting or kidnapping the persons affected by their actions.
She said the offences the bill created were in fact misdemeanours and should be included in the Criminal (Amendment) Act.
A GINA report, however, quotes Gajraj as saying that where a prosecution is brought under the bill when enacted and the offence committed is more appropriate under some other act, the court has the duty and responsibility to see that the legislation is not abused.
The Kidnapping Bill introduces in statutory form the common law offence of kidnapping. It provides for penalties in cases where no ransom is demanded for abduction with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person, for wrongful restraint of a person and for wrongful confinement of a person. The fine for wrongful restraint in the bill before the agreement with the parliamentary opposition is $300,000 and imprisonment for three years; and for wrongful confinement it is $500,000 and imprisonment for five years.
It also provides that where an accused person is proved to be in possession of pecuniary resources for which he cannot account disproportionate to his income, that this could be used as corroborating testimony of any witness in the trial that the accused has received a ransom.
It also makes it an offence for a person to receive a ransom in connection with a kidnapping, under penalty of a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years and a fine equivalent to the ransom received.
It also makes it an offence for a person to be aware of the commission of the offence of kidnapping and to neglect to forthwith give information to a police officer about it. The bill also provides protection for informers.
