The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has filed an application asking for High Court Judge, Priscilla Chandra-Hanif, to recuse herself from further conduct of the case against four men who are preparing to stand trial for the September 2020 murder of 17 year-old Haresh Singh.

The DPP wants the Judge to recuse herself from the case on the ground of “the appearance of a likelihood of bias.”

The application filed Tuesday follows a decision of Justice Chandra-Hanif to separate the trial of the first named accused from the three other accused.

But at a pre-trial hearing on Tuesday, the Defence Attorneys in the matter railed into the State over the application, telling the Court that it was “contemptuous,” “despicable” and a “malicious attempt” to launch an assault on the reputation of the Court.

On August 24, 2026, the High Court granted severance to the Second, Third and Fourth named accused in the matter, and that decision did not find favour with the State, resulting in the application for the judgment of the court to be recalled.

But when that application was refused on Tuesday, Counsel for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Praneta Seeraj and Christopher Belfield filed another application for the Judge to recuse herself from the case.

In defence of its application, the State argued that there is a real possibility that the issues remaining for trial, in particular, the issues of credibility of contested identification and alibi evidence, and the caution statement attributed to the first named accused have been “prejudged.”

“The State makes this application acknowledging that recusal is not lightly sought and that disagreement with rulings is ordinarily pursued by way of recall or appeal. On the 1^st September 2026, the Court’s refusal to recall her ruling dated the 24^th August was based on a misinterpretation of the law on severance, and the Court failed to recognize that only admissible evidence prior to the commencement of the trial can be considered on an application to sever an indictment,” a section of the application read.

The State added that the “combination of procedural irregularities and errors in law made, remarks made by the Court, and directions encroaching upon prosecutorial discretion cross the line from robust case management into the appearance of likelihood of bias.”

Defence Attorney Dexter Todd, who is one of the lawyers representing one of the accused, Charles Scott, told the Court that the application was contemptuous. He repeated that position outside of the Courtroom.

“I am speaking from a personal standpoint that I have not seen that level of, I wouldn’t say boldness, I would say presumptuousness of an attorney, speaking to the court whether orally or in writing in that manner, and out-rightly attacking the judgments. We all in this profession have very high ethical conduct, we ought to always maintain, and I believe that even where you are in disagreement with a particular reasoning of a judgment of a judge, the court system, in which we operate in the hierarchical structure allows you to go to a higher court and to reason, and to make your arguments, and to see if that higher court would overturn that judgment. But to actually put it in application in that manner, I believe it was contemptuous,” Attorney Todd told reporters.

Inside the courtroom, Attorney-at-Law, Nigel Hughes, who along with a team of lawyers, is representing Joel Gittens and Glaston Henry – told the Court that the State’s application was “offensive” as he alluded to the section that accused the sitting judge of crossing “the line from robust case management into the appearance of likelihood of bias.”

Arguing that the content of the application amounts to “contempt,” Hughes submitted that if the State was unhappy with the decision of the Court, it ought to have filed an appeal and not launch a scathing attack on the Court.

He said it is clear that the State does not want Justice Chandra-Hanif to hear the case, and is now attempting to delay the case.

But State Counsel Belfield rejected the arguments put forward by both Hughes and Todd, telling the Court that it is not the intention of the State to delay the matter.

He said the defence attorneys, in their arguments, conveniently relied on two sections of the application. Those two sections, he posited, do not constitute the entire application, and it must be read as a whole. Belfield also signaled the State’s intention to appeal the ruling of the Court.

But Justice Chandra-Hanif, while noting that the case is in its pretrial phase, questioned whether the appeal was being filed to the Full Court or the Court of Appeal.

Belfield told the Court that unfortunately he would not be able to place the information on the record, explaining that it is a matter to be addressed directly by the DPP, and he must await instructions.

Both sides have been given strict timelines to make their written submission, and Justice Chandra-Hanif will hand down her decision on the application to have her recuse herself from the matter on Friday.

Related posts:

High Court Judge shuts down lawyer’s request for recusal in case challenging Natural Resources Fund Judge orders removal of President as respondent in Police Service Commission case; AG wants entire case dismissed Bisram wants murder case transferred from Berbice, citing bias Attorney and Juror in hot water over links in Lusignan case