Court halts cybercrime prosecution to address novel challenges to speech-based offences in Guyana

Last Updated on Sunday, 21 December 2025, 18:34 by Writer

A significant legal development unfolded on Friday at the Diamond Magistrate’s Court, highlighting the growing concerns over the criminalisation of speech-based conduct under Guyana’s Cybercrime Act 2018, a defence lawyer said on Sunday.

The proceedings in Court 3 before Magistrate Dylon Andray Bess were halted to address novel jurisdictional and constitutional issues raised by the defence in a case involving alleged use of a computer system to humiliate, defence counsel Dr Vivian Williams said in a statement.

The defendant, businesswoman Ann Narine, is charged with “using a computer system to publish electronic data with intent to humiliate” the complainant.

When the matter was called on Friday, December 19, Dr. Williams, a New York–based attorney, appearing alongside Nigel Hughes, objected to the proceedings. Dr. Williams presented a comprehensive application to strike out the charge, arguing that it is defective, vague, and insufficiently particularized.

Dr. Williams also raised a novel and significant jurisdictional challenge, questioning what constitutes sufficient pleading of jurisdiction in cyber and computer-related offences, particularly where such prosecutions could chill the fundamental constitutional right to freedom of expression.

He emphasised that strict pleading requirements are essential in cases criminalising speech, given the potentially broad and chilling effect of the charge and the potential for jurisdictional overreach.

Magistrate Bess acknowledged the unusual and important nature of the objections and noted the significance of the constitutional and jurisdictional issues raised. The court took a lengthy recess, to allow the prosecution time to consider and respond to the objections raised by the defence.

However, when the matter was recalled, the prosecutor informed the Court that they were not yet prepared to oppose the application and requested an adjournment which was granted to January 6, 2026.

In light of the adjournment, the court directed the defence to lay over their oral submissions in writing.

Considering the preliminary objections, Dr Williams said the Court did not proceed with the substantive matter or take a plea. The defence contended that the proceedings should be stayed until the legality and sufficiency of the charge are addressed.

On the issue of bail, the defence successfully convinced the Court that no restrictive conditions were necessary and nominal bail of GY$30,000 was imposed.

Additionally, a separate charge against Ms. Narine, alleging refusal to be fingerprinted and photographed, was dismissed upon application by defence counsel.

Ms. Narine continues to be represented by Dr. Vivian Williams and Mr Nigel Hughes.

The forthcoming ruling on the written submissions could have wide-reaching implications for how cybercrime offences, particularly those involving alleged speech or expression, are prosecuted in Guyana.

In considering the adjournment and the reducing the oral submissions into writing, it was noted that the case may become a test for both jurisdictional pleading standards and the constitutional limits on prosecuting speech-based conduct, amid public calls for reform or repeal of the Cybercrime Act, Dr Williams said.