Freddie Kissoon assault case...Lawyer raises concerns over Kissoon’s competence as a witness

Freddie Kissoon assault case…Lawyer raises concerns over Kissoon’s competence as a witness

Sep 11, 2016 News

Defence Counsel Glenn Hanoman, on Friday, raised concerns over the competence of Kaieteur News Columnist, Frederick Kissoon as a witness in the matter for which three men are on trial for an alleged assault on Kissoon in May 2010.
Hanoman is among a team of lawyers representing the three accused Kwame McCoy, Jason Abdulla and Shawn Hinds in the case.

Newspaper Columnist, Frederick Kissoon

It is alleged that on May 24, 2010 in Georgetown, McCoy, Abdulla and Hinds assaulted Kissoon, a newspaper columnist.
The trio allegedly walked up to Kissoon and instigated the throwing of faeces in Kissoon’s face after he emerged from Nigel’s Supermarket, Robb Street, Georgetown.
During the commencement of the proceeding at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on Friday, the defence attorney also requested a discontinuation of the matter involving the three men.
Hanoman‘s application was based on the fact that the only witness who could have connected the defendants to the crime, is dead. Osmond Griffith, a key witness, was killed in an accident on the East Coast Demerara (ECD) Public Road, in the vicinity of Industry on September 2, last.
As such, the lawyer said that a discontinuation of the case would be in the interest of saving precious judicial time.
But Magistrate Judy Latchman said while she was not aware of the witness’s death, it has no bearing on the life of the trial. She then asked that Hanoman proceed with the cross-examination of Kissoon.
Kissoon was asked whether he met Osmond Griffith during a visit to Kaieteur News office following the attack.
The witness essentially denied the attorney’s suggestions.

Kwame McCoy

“You seem to know more about my life than I do Mr. Hanoman,” Kissoon stated in response.
Hanoman then pointed to an article which was purportedly written by Kaieteur News, Editor -in -Chief Adam Harris.
According to the lawyer, in the article Harris said that Kissoon met with Griffith, who apologised to him (Kissoon) following the incident.
The line of questioning was overruled by the Magistrate.
“What does that have to do with the price of cheese? she asked. “What is written in an article is neither here nor there. It is of no evidential value,” Latchman added. She instructed the lawyer to move forward from the line of questioning.
The lawyer went on to ask Kissoon about his recollection of the incident and whether he was still traumatized by it.
“No. This incident occurred six years ago,” Kissoon said.
“Are you aware that you are obligated to the truth, the whole truth, in this court today?” Hanoman asked.
“That‘s commonsensical. I am aware,” the witness responded.
The defence attorney then questioned the witness‘ recollection of the incident. He asked specifically for licence plate of the vehicle which the attackers would have used to escape.
According to Hanoman, Kissoon had mentioned some “uniqueness” about the number plate. Kissoon was adamant that he said unusual.
“Unusual and unique are two very different things Mr. Hanoman,” Kissoon noted. The witness was unyielding to the suggestion. The witness was also shown his statement, from which he reaffirmed that he said the word “unusual.”
He even explained that the number plate he saw was linear and not rectangular as suggested by the attorney.

Shawn Hinds

Under further questioning, Kissoon was asked whether or not he felt that the substance was thrown on him accidentally
“The substance was deliberately thrown on me,” the witness said. “There is nothing about his (the attacker’s) actions that made believe that he didn’t intend to throw it on me,” he added.
During the proceedings there were a number of outbursts between the witness and the attorney, which prompted the Magistrate to intervene.
“Alright! alright Mr Kissoon! Mr Hanoman let’s move on,” the Magistrate would repeatedly say.
Toward the end of the proceeding, the defence attorney made an application to have Kissoon’s testimony withdrawn. The attorney said that Kissoon‘s testimony should be questioned on a matter of competence.
According to the lawyer, the responses provided by Kissoon clearly indicate that he is not competent of giving straight (direct) answers. Hanoman pointed out that when questioned Kissoon went on a philosophical rant rather than answer the question.
The attorney pointed to sections of the law which deal with competence of witnesses.
Hanoman noted that a capable witness must be capable of telling the whole truth.
According to Hanoman that there was at least one instance in which Kissoon told the court that he is not aware that he obligated to tell the whole truth. Hanoman said that if Kissoon‘s testimony is found in violation of the laws outlined in the Evidence Act, it should be struck out.
But Magistrate Latchman perused the evidence and she found that Kissoon had said that he was there “to tell the truth.” “He said he was here to tell the truth, Mr Hanoman. “
According to the Magistrate‘s record, the KN columnist further affirmed that there are different dimensions of the truth. The matter was subsequently scheduled to continue on September 16 at 10: 30 am.

1 thoughts on “Freddie Kissoon assault case…Lawyer raises concerns over Kissoon’s competence as a witness”

Cat oman September 11, 2016 at 7:55 am

Why has it taken the courts 6 years to hear this case? It’s a simple question to determine guilt. Did the defendants throw feces in the face of Mr. Kissoon? Yes, they did. So fine them or jail them but either way this case should come to an end.