GRA customs officers, security agent remanded on cocaine charge

Aug 03, 2013 News

Three stirring submissions were presented yesterday by Attorneys at Law Nigel Hughes, Abiola Wong-Inniss and James Bond, who represented the trio arraigned on charges of conspiracy to traffic cocaine via the Cheddi Jagan International Airport.
Anthony Thomas, 28, Gregory Lou, 30, and Ravindra Singh, 19, were brought before Chief Magistrate Priya Beharry at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court where the particulars of the charge stated that on July 27, they conspired together with others to traffic 11.448 kilograms of cocaine.

From left: Gregory Lou, Anthony Thomas and Ravindra Singh

The accused pleaded not guilty.
Special Prosecutor, Oswald Massiah of the Customs Anti Narcotics Unit (CANU) stated that Thomas of Lot 43 Main and New Market Streets was employed as a Grade 2 officer at the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) for 12 years and was assigned as an officer at the airport.
Singh also known as “Ravi,” of Lot 8 Company Road, West Ruimveldt, was employed as a security agent with Security Innovations Concept at the Airport where he served for two years.
Lou of Lot 22 Herstelling, East Bank Demerara, was an employed at GRA as a Grade 1 officer and was also stationed at the airport.
It is alleged that on July 20, Singh approached a Caribbean Airlines officer and asked him to generate a baggage tag for which he would be paid US$2500. The tag was produced, but the officer had a change of heart and returned the money and asked for the tag to be returned, but it was not recovered.
The charge also stated that on July 27, Thomas who performed late night duties which ended at 7 am on Sunday last, was relieved by another officer, but stayed around the compound. Singh on the other hand, had a conversation with an operator who controls the baggage being loaded on the plane. He then allegedly asked the operator if he could have a word with Lou. After their interaction, it was noted that Thomas offered money to Lou to act as a lookout and remove the bag and place it on the baggage cart to go on another plane which was headed for JFK Airport in New York – CAL Flight 526.
A senior security officer conducted a search and discovered the illicit substance in the bag. Officers from CANU were contacted and ten packets containing the narcotic were discovered.
Further investigations were carried out, legal advice was sought, and the relevant charges were laid.
Representing Thomas was Attorney at Law, Nigel Hughes who related to the court that his client is a father of two, is the principal breadwinner of his family and his passport was misplaced in excess of one year. Prior to his current charge, he enjoyed the benefits of an immaculate reputation.
Hughes stated that the facts of the prosecution are not only unreliable but cannot be used as admissible evidence since they are only going on what was said by the defendants.
“The bag was not found in the custody of my client and no witnesses have been identified to say that the bag was in his possession. They don’t have a confession statement, a caution statement or an admission.”
That in itself, Hughes said, amounts to special reasons.
In Singh’s defence, Attorney at Law Abiola Wong-Inniss said that from the narration of the facts presented to the court, it is not admissible evidence and the only reason her client is before the court is based on the fact that he refused to give useful information, “now he is facing a conspiracy charge and the person who admitted to the allegations, was released. I don’t believe that this is the way the system was intended to work.”
Lawyer James Bond, who represented Lou, stated that no evidence was submitted by the prosecution in which they could prove that his client had knowledge of any illegal activity in relation to the charge.
A critical part of Hughes’s submission was where he pointed out that the particulars of the charge against his client lends itself to section 95 of the Psychotropic Substances and Narcotic Drug Control Act 1988.
“Section 95 of the Act creates the offences of conspiracy to traffic as opposed to trafficking. In the particulars of the charge, the prosecution has alleged conspiracy but has not charged him with conspiracy in order to avoid the defendants getting bail.” The lawyer contented that the charge of conspiracy which falls under Section 95 of the Offences Act is a bailable offence without need to prove special reasons.
To this, Prosecutor Massiah was not tempted to respond but objected to bail on the grounds that no special reasons were presented to the court for such to be considered and with reference to Thomas, the prosecutor said that he found it particularly hard to find when efforts were made to contact him.
“It was only until his picture was placed in the Stabroek Newspaper, that he was found.”
Hughes sprung to his feet and articulated his disappointment in the prosecution. “I am deeply disappointed with my learned friend. No contact was made with my client. I was contacted by his relative who informed me that his picture was in the papers and I instructed that he be taken into the police in the company of an Attorney. That is such a perversion. I will restrain myself from saying further.”
Massiah described the lawyer’s remarks as “derogatory” and said that it is not perversion.
Chief Magistrate then considered the grounds and seriousness of the offence along with the submission made by Counsel Hughes with regard to the particulars of the charge and Section 95 of the Offences Act.
Bail was refused for the trio and the matter was transferred to Providence Magistrates’ Court on August 5 for report and fixture.