標題: Wholesale China Jerseys Hits and Jams Entertainment [打印本頁] 作者: nicesan5s5 時間: 2018-7-19 01:56 標題: Wholesale China Jerseys Hits and Jams Entertainment
The past 12 months saw the courts being flooded with a number of high profile matters. These ranged from radio licenses to budgetary cuts to murders and the list goes on. The following is a summary of several interesting ones:RADIO LICENCESAs criticism grew over government’s refusal to recall several radio licences issued under unclear circumstances by former President Bharrat Jagdeo in 2011, private media houses turned to the court for recourse.The legal challenge was filed by the National Media Publishing Company, publishers of Kaieteur News, and the Guyana Media Proprietors Association Limited (GMPA). It named Attorney General, the Minister of Broadcasting, National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU), Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) and twelve recipients that were granted broadcast licences by Jagdeo shortly before he ended his term in office in November 2011.The applicants for those licences were Radio Guyana Inc- owner of Guyana Times and TVG 28; Telcor and Cultural Broadcasting Inc.; NTN Radio – owner of Channel 69; New Guyana Company Limited-owner of The Mirror newspaper; Rudolph Grant; Wireless Connection; Hits and Jams Entertainment; Alfro Alphonso and Sons; Haslyn Graham and Little Rock Television Station. E-Networks Inc and Quark Communications Inc were also named as the Respondents.According to court documents signed by Publisher of Kaieteur News, Glenn Lall, and filed by his lawyer, Roysdale Forde, the licences were issued under the old Post and Telegraph Act and done in bad faith, are discriminatory and not legal.The media houses and Lall said that the licences breached their legitimate expectations and constitutional rights. It pointed to an agreement dated May 5, 2003 between Jagdeo and formerOpposition Leader, Robert Corbin, where it was agreed there would be a freeze on all new commercial frequencies for radio and television until a new Broadcasting Act came into effect.Jagdeo’s exercise of his discretion to grants those licences was abused and unreasonable also. The media houses asked for court orders to quash the licences.Regarding the cable TV licences to E-Network and Quark Communications, reportedly owned by Vishok Persaud and Brian Yong respectively, friends of the former President, the media houses also want these to be quashed on the same grounds.Valmiki Singh, head of the NFMU,wholesale soccer jerseys, was also asked to produce a statement to the court of all available radio, television and cable frequencies in Guyana.Lall and GMPA, in asking for the court to issue an order for TV and radio broadcast licences to be granted to them, also want a declaration that the frequency spectrum is a national resource.They are also asking in excess of $1M for aggravated damages and an unspecified amount for exemplary damages.In the affidavit supporting the constitutional challenge, Lall said in December 2008 he applied to Prime Minister Samuel Hinds to operate a cable TV network; a radio station and a TV station.Veteran journalist, Enrico Woolford,Cheap NHL Jerseys China, of Capitol News, also filed a similar court action.BUDGET CUTSBack in 2012 the Parliamentary Opposition which had the majority in the House,Cheap Jerseys Free Shipping, slashed the budget by $21B, prompting the Government to take legal action on the basis that the Opposition has no power to cut the budget.The Chief Justice in a preliminary ruling had said that the National Assembly cannot cut the budget and that the Finance Minister has the authority to allocate monies as needed. But the Opposition again in 2013, despite the ruling, slashed over $30B from the estimates, prompting a return to the court for a final ruling.On June 19, 2013, a decision was taken by Chief Justice Ian Chang to dismiss the Opposition Leader, as well as Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh from the case, on the grounds that as Members of Parliament (MPs), the constitution provides them with immunity. Granger has since sought to waive his immunity in an appeal.Come January 13, 2014 when the matter will be heard, Justices James Bovell-Drakes and Rishi Persaud will decide on Granger’s appeal.On that date, the Leader of the Opposition will know whether he will be allowed to be heard in the 2012 Budget Cut court case, which is being held in abeyance pending the course of the appeal.Attorney General Anil Nandlall who represents the Government had argued that Granger’s immunity as an MP prohibits any participation in legal proceedings. Granger’s attorney Basil Williams had however, argued that his client was willing to waive his immunity.Nandlall disagreed with the Opposition Leader’s claim that he has a right to waive his immunity, arguing that it is not immunity but a prohibition which could expose all other Parliamentarians. The AG stated that for the Opposition Leader to relinquish his rights to immunity, legislation has to be passed, amending the current law before this can happen.NEW SENTENCING SCHEMEIn October,Cheap Adidas NHL Jerseys, Justice Navindra Singh, sat down with Kaieteur News to explain his new sentencing method. According to Justice Singh although the death penalty is the maximum sentence, it is not mandatory and as such he has developed a new sentencing scheme.Justice Singh, who spoke to Kaieteur News, had explained that in December 2012 he made a ruling, stating basically that he did not think that the death penalty was mandatory.“It’s the maximum sentence, so therefore there is the discretion if I want to go with it.” He explained that he worked out from various sentencing schemes a base, then goes to the aggravating factors. Justice Singh explained that if they are mitigating factors it would be subtracted.That’s how he comes up with the sentence.“It’s a long list I made up of various aggravating factors which I find the most common, and based on the North American and British sentencing schemes,Wholesale Nike NFL Jerseys, I try to set out ( a duration) that is applicable to this society,” Justice Singh explained.The judge went on to state that one reason why he does not institute the death penalty; is that there has not been an execution in Guyana for the past 16 years.Justice Singh told Kaieteur News that he believes that the purpose of the death penalty is that if the person is found guilty it means that the person is dangerous to society. He said that if there is no execution the person would be on Death Row, which could lead to their sentence being commuted to life imprisonment as what has happened already.He said that once the sentences are commuted, there is a great likelihood that the person could be released at some point in time. Justice Singh said that he believes that is contrary to the concept that the legislators wanted. Against this backdrop he said that’s how he has worked out his method.In an invited comment, Attorney General Anil Nandall explained that by virtue of an amendment during the ninth Parliament of Guyana, the death penalty legislation was modified to a degree that not every murder accused is liable to receive the death penalty.“In accordance with the legislative amendments there are certain categories of murders which will retain the death penalty.One would be the murder of law enforcement officers and there are others… Besides those stipulated categories, the judge holds the power to impose a sentence other than the death penalty”When asked if the opportunity exists for parole after the handing down of such a sentence, the Attorney General said that parole is a matter for the prison. “After sentencing, the judiciary no longer has any role to play.” Nandlall said.STOP AND SEARCH JUDGMENTIn December, the High Court made a judgment of over $2M to Justice Navindra Singh who had taken the Guyana Police Force to task for the way in which they conducted their stop and search exercise.The judgment on October 31, 2013 by Justice William Ramlal,Cheap Jerseys Free Shipping, is also likely to raise the debate over the powers of police ranks to stop and search vehicles. There have been numerous complaints by vehicle owners of harassment by police at roadblocks.The lawsuit, which was filed on October 24, 2006 by then Attorney-at-law, Navindra Singh, against Police Constable Benjamin 11712, Police Sergeant James 12496 and the Attorney General, accused the police of assault, malicious arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.Singh took the stand during the seven-year trial of the action but was not cross-examined by the defence.According to the judgment by Justice Ramlal, prior to the trial, the Attorney General had moved to settle the matter for $500,000 but this was not accepted by Singh and his lawyer.
