Hinckson alleges continued police harassment, further remanded

Sep 19, 2008 News

– Lawyer deems evidence inadmissible

Sedition accused, Oliver Hinckson

Sedition accused, Oliver Hinckson, made yet another court appearance yesterday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, before Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson-Ogle.

But before the actual deliberations began, Special Prosecutor Sanjeev Datadin asked that the witness at the previous occasion be excused, because the defence had raised the issue of her receiving filtered evidence.
Datadin then asked that the presiding Magistrate note the witness’s presence.

The prosecutor subsequently requested that the third witness, police corporal, Suraj Singh, be called to give his evidence.

He was further examined by the Special Prosecutor. As the witness was being questioned by Prosecutor Datadin, one of the lawyers for the accused, Vic Puran, objected.

Puran said that the “best evidence” would win any day in court. The lawyer said that the documents are inadmissible because there was no foundation of the transcript. The lawyer questioned why it wasn’t put into evidence.

The objection that Puran raised was that it was the prosecution’s case and that the documents that the prosecution is seeking to tender are not the original recording of what Oliver Hinckson allegedly said. He further noted that there was no base for the admission of secondary evidence.

Special Prosecutor Datadin in turn said that the witness gave evidence of WHAT was said, and he marked his initials on the sheets of paper.

The lawyer said he wrote in his notebook, and the evidence that it contains are the answers, and it was irrelevant that this be raised.

Datadin said that the evidence is admissible; he noted that police officers would normally make notes and then transfer them.

Datadin further noted that it is not a case that one officer writes something and gives it to another. The witness used his own information and then he simply transferred his notes, Datadin said. He added that if the witness were to see his (notes) again he would recognize them.

Puran then interjected and asked the court to state which rule of law allows transcription to be placed into further evidence.

He said that the issue of the evidence is secondary, and it is not original. The defence lawyer said that if the state prosecutor does not know this he should have brought a lawyer to court. The accused, Hinckson, at this point, voiced a few of his concerns.

He said that his family is consistently being harassed by members of the “black clothes” police. Hinckson said that last Saturday his 12-year-old daughter was harassed by the policemen. They pointed their guns at his child, he said.

He further noted that his tenants are also being targeted; the tenants are all British citizens. The accused said that his brother who suffers from high blood pressure had to be hospitalised because of the harassment.

Attorney–at-Law Nigel Hughes, who is the lead attorney for the accused, questioned the reason for the other charge not being read.

The prosecutor then responded that the matters would be tried separately. Hinckson was further remanded to prison and ordered to make his next court appearance on September 24. (Latoya Giles)

Latest News