Humberto Novelo v Attorney General of Belize
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Chabot, J. |
| Judgment Date | 13 September 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM No. CV 426 of 2022 |
CLAIM No. CV 426 of 2022
IN THE SENIOR COURTS OF BELIZE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE
Anthony Sylvestre for the Claimant
Samantha Matute and Alea Gomez for the Defendant
The claimant, Humberto Novelo, is charged with the offences of manslaughter by negligence, causing death by careless conduct, driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, and failure to report an accident. The events giving rise to these charges occurred on 5 th February 2012 (the “incident”). Mr. Novelo has yet to be tried.
Mr. Novelo filed this claim for constitutional relief on 14 th July 2022. Mr. Novelo seeks a declaration that his right under section 6(2) of the Belize Constitution to a hearing within a reasonable time has been breached, the entering of a permanent stay of further proceedings in the criminal matter against him, and costs.
The Attorney General contends that Mr. Novelo's conduct largely contributed to the delay. Specifically, the Attorney General argues that non-appearance of defence counsel, the time allotted for Mr. Novelo to seek legal counsel, and Mr. Novelo's requests for adjournments delayed the trial for approximately 21 months. In addition, the restrictions placed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to the trial of this matter being delayed.
For the reasons outlined in this judgment, I find no breach of Mr. Novelo's right under section 6(2) of the Belize Constitution to a hearing within a reasonable time. The claim is dismissed.
This matter was heard based on written submissions only at the request of counsel. Four witnesses provided written statements in this matter: Mr. Novelo, as well as Crown counsel Dovini Chell, Javier Chan, and Shanidi Chell-Urbina. As none of the witnesses were cross-examined, the information in the witness statements is uncontested.
Mr. Novelo was arrested and charged with the above-noted offences on 13 th March 2015. A preliminary inquiry was conducted in 2016 before a Magistrate of the Orange Walk Judicial District. Mr. Novelo was thereafter committed for trial to the (then) Supreme Court. Mr. Novelo was indicted to stand trial in the Supreme Court on or around 25 th April 2017 (the “Indictment”).
On 19 th June 2017, Mr. Novelo was arraigned. Crown counsel Javier Chan and defence counsel Kareem Musa entered appearances. Mr. Novelo entered a plea of “not guilty” to the charges on the Indictment, and was granted bail. The matter was adjourned to 31 st July 2017 by agreement of the parties for a case management conference.
Neither Mr. Novelo nor his counsel appeared for the case management conference on 31 st July 2017. Lord J. issued a Bench Warrant for the detention of Mr. Novelo and Notice to Sureties. The matter was adjourned to the 10 th October 2017. On 4 th October 2017, all matters set for 10 th October 2017 before Lord J. were adjourned to 16 th October 2017.
The case management conference proceeded on 16 th October 2017. The defence raised an alibi defence and was given time to provide information on the alibi witnesses. The matter was adjourned to 6 th December 2017. At the case management hearing on 6 th December 2017, the trial of the matter was scheduled for 12 th February 2018.
The trial did not proceed as scheduled on 12 th February 2018 because defence counsel did not appear in court. The trial was adjourned to 17 th April 2018, which was the next available date for the court. On 17 th April 2018, the trial was rescheduled by the court to 4 th June 2018. However, the court was not in session on 4 th June 2018, so notice was given to appear on 26 th September 2018 to proceed with the trial.
On 26 th September 2018, Crown counsel appeared in court but defence counsel was absent. A new trial date of 3 rd December 2018 was given. On 3 rd December 2018, Crown counsel and Mr. Novelo appeared in court, but defence counsel was absent. A new trial date of 4 th February 2019 was given. The court was not in session on 4 th February 2019, so notice was given to appear on 28 th February 2019.
On 28 th February 2019, Crown counsel and Mr. Novelo appeared in court, but defence counsel was absent. A new trial date was set for 25 th March 2019. On 25 th March 2019, Crown counsel and Mr. Novelo appeared in court, but defence counsel was absent. The matter was adjourned to 13 th May 2019. On 13 th May 2019, the matter was further adjourned to 8 th July 2019. On 8 th July 2019, Crown counsel appeared in court but defence counsel was absent. The matter was adjourned to 15 th October 2019.
On 15 th October 2019, both Crown and defence counsel entered appearances. Mr. Novelo was also present in court. It was agreed that the matter would be set for trial on 20 th November 2019. The court was not in session on 20 th November 2019, so the parties were asked to return to court the next day. On 21 st November 2019, the matter was adjourned to 16 th December 2019 at the request of defence counsel. On 16 th December 2019, the matter was adjourned to 25 th February 2020. On 25 th February, Crown counsel entered an appearance but defence counsel was absent. The matter was adjourned to 22 nd April 2020.
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted Belize. In response to the pandemic, the Government of Belize enacted legislation for the purposes of preventing, controlling, containing and suppressing the spread of COVID-19. On 1 st April 2020, Statutory Instrument 46 of 2020 Belize Constitution (Emergency Powers) Regulations was passed which imposed a curfew and a restriction on the operation of government offices, including the judiciary offices. Additionally, the Regulations imposed social distancing protocols and restricted the number of persons who were permitted to be in an establishment at any one time.
On 20 th March 2020, the Judiciary of Belize suspended all jury trials with immediate effect from that date. The restrictions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic continued for the remainder of 2020 and 2021. The Northern District remained closed until January 2022. The Attorney General notes that prior to the enactment of the Indictable Procedure ( Amendment) Act, 2022 on 22 nd March 2022, the offences which Mr. Novelo is charged with were tried before a judge and jury.
On 18 th January 2022, the matter was adjourned to 8 th March 2022. On 8 th March 2022, Crown counsel entered an appearance, but neither Mr. Novelo nor his counsel appeared in court. Lord J. issued a Bench Warrant and a Notice to Sureties. The matter was adjourned to 10 th March 2022. On 10 th March 2022, Mr. Novelo and his counsel were again absent in court. Lord J. directed that the Bench Warrant and Notice to Sureties be executed. However, upon presentation of a medical note showing that Mr. Novelo had tested positive for COVID-19, the Bench Warrant was cancelled. The matter remained adjourned until 7 th April 2022.
On 7 th April 2022, Crown counsel appeared in court, but defence counsel was absent as he had been appointed a Minister of Government. The matter was adjourned to 13 th June 2022 for Mr. Novelo to indicate to the court who would be representing him in the case. On 13 th June 2022, the matter was set for trial on 4 th October 2022.
On 4 th October 2022, Crown counsel appeared in court but no counsel appeared for the defence. The court indicated that it had not received a Change of Counsel Notice, and would grant an adjournment to 28 th November 2022 for Mr. Novelo to retain counsel. The court further indicated it would proceed with trial on the said date.
On 28 th November 2022, both Crown counsel and Mr. Novelo appeared in court. Mr. Novelo informed the court that Mr. Anthony Sylvestre would be representing him. However, the court had not received any written notice from Mr. Sylvestre, and Mr. Sylvestre had not yet presented himself before the court in the matter. The court directed Mr. Novelo to inform his counsel that a notice had to be sent to the court. The matter was adjourned to the 1 st February 2023 for trial.
It is my understanding that the proceedings in the criminal court have been stayed pending the determination of this constitutional challenge.
The following issues must be determined:
-
a. Whether there has been unreasonable delay in the trial process of The King v Humberto Novelo;
-
b. Whether Mr. Novelo has contributed to the delay;
-
c. Whether the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions imposed in response to the pandemic amount to exceptional circumstances;
-
d. Whether there has been a breach of Mr. Novelo's right under section 6(2) of the Belize Constitution; and
-
e. Whether Mr. Novelo is entitled to a permanent stay of proceedings in the matter of The King v Humberto Novelo.
Section 6(2) of the Belize Constitution guarantees a right to be tried within a reasonable time. Section 6(2) reads as follows:
6(2) If any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.
The constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It protects both the accused and the public from the harm caused by judicial delays. In the words of Jamadar, JCCJ, “delay denies justice”. 1 In Frank Errol Gibson v The Attorney General, 2 the CCJ noted that delays create backlogs which tarnish the image of the criminal justice system. As time passes, memories fade and witnesses may become unavailable, thus making it more difficult to convict a guilty person. Delays also have social and financial costs. Accused persons released on bail
To continue reading
Request your trial