JUSTICE Beasraj S. Roy yesterday dismissed a Constitutional motion by treason accused Mark Benschop that sought a declaration to the effect that Justice Jainarayan Singh was employing delaying tactics, to keep him (Benschop) in prison without trial within a reasonable time.
Justice Roy dismissed the motion after taking into account the arguments by Attorney General, Mr. Doodnauth Singh, S.C. who had urged the Court to regard the matter as res judicata meaning that the issue being pursued by Benschop’s lawyer, Mr. Benjamin Gibson, was a carbon copy of a similar motion heard and determined by Justice Dawn Gregory Barnes some time ago.
Mr. Gibson indicated that he would appeal the ruling.
On December 12, 2003, the applicant had appeared before Justice Gregory-Barnes condemning the delay of Mr. Justice Jainarayan Singh in a certiorari case and seeking declarations similar to the ones he was pursuing before Justice Roy.
The Attorney General had said, “This is a blatant attempt by the applicant to circumvent the process of the Court by again enticing an order in his favour, when one has already been given on the same matter against him.
Mr. Singh had submitted that the applicant by raising the issue again before Justice Roy was indeed abusing the process of the Court and the matter was res judicata.
During the hearing of the matter, the A. G. had submitted that by way of analogy the applicant by appearing before ‘this Court is abusing the process of the Court. This he has done with the prior knowledge that a similar action was filed before another judge of concurrent jurisdiction that was dismissed by that said judge.
“This is an affront to the process of the Court. This application is premature, misconceived and frivolous and should be dismissed with costs to the respondents,” the A.G. had said.
In his ruling yesterday, Justice Roy found that the application was misconceived, and dismissed same.
But Mr. Gibson, who denied that the first motion was a carbon copy of the motion before Justice Gregory-Barnes, indicated that he would test the ruling on appeal.