Latest update November 12th, 2024 1:00 AM
Jun 01, 2021 News
– Former murder accused likely to face charges again
By Rehanna Ramsay
The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed a cross-appeal by former murder accused, Marcus Bisram, and handed down a ruling in favour of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, which is likely to see Bisram face fresh proceedings for the murder of Berbice carpenter, Faiyaz Narinedatt.
Following a hearing of the matter in February, the Appeal Court had reserved its ruling as it relates to the murder charges being reinstituted on the discharged Guyanese/US businessman and philanthropist.
Bisram, who was extradited from the United States to face charges for the 2016 crime, has faced a preliminary trial in the Magistrates’ Court. Magistrate Renita Singh, after a preliminary inquiry had ruled that there was insufficient evidence to send him to the High Court for trial.
The DPP had, however, invoked her powers under Section 72 (1) and (2) (ii) (b) of the Criminal Law Offences Act, and directed the Magistrate to reopen the inquiry with a view of committing Bisram to the High Court for trial.
Her directions were complied with but Bisram challenged the DPP’s right to instruct the Magistrate in the High Court. In a subsequent decision, High Court Justice, Simone Morris-Ramlall, quashed the DPP’s orders.
Justice Morris-Ramlall also ordered that the DPP should be prohibited from instituting the charges against Bisram again. It is this order that the DPP challenged in the Appeal Court. Bisram through his attorney Arudranauth Gossai, cross-appealed challenging the DPP’s right to order the Magistrate.
Gossai had contended that the DPP stepped outside her realm in her order to the Magistrate given that Article 122 A of the Constitution “created an independent judiciary, and expressly provides that all courts and all persons presiding over the courts, shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any form of direction and control.”
Gossai had contended essentially that the DPP powers falls outside the judiciary.
In her oral arguments, DPP Ali-Hack, SC, had maintained that she is legally empowered to order a Magistrate to reinstitute charges on Bisram, under Section 72 of the Criminal Law Offences Act.
Given this right to direct the Magistrate to reopen the Preliminary Inquiry (PI) and commit the accused for trial, the DPP said that her directive for Bisram to be committed to stand trial was proper, reasonable and lawfully made.
She stressed, among other things, that the Magistrate erred in finding there was not enough evidence to commit Bisram for trial. “This was the function of the jury not the Magistrate,” she said. “Section 72 (2) (1) and (2) (a) and (b) empowers the DPP to direct the Magistrate…,” she emphasised.
She also stated, among other things that with a jury properly directed, there can be a conviction for the murder of Narinedatt, who was killed between October 31, 2016 and November 1, 2016. The DPP had contended too, that there were several errors in Justice Morris-Ramlall’s judgment.
In response, Gossai had stressed that in his view, the provisions of Section 72 (2) (ii) (a) seek to encroach on the judicial determination of a Magistrate. Such an encroachment, he pointed out, would offend the separation of powers doctrine.
Nov 12, 2024
Kaieteur Sports- After two days of fierce competition, the 2024 Hamilton Green Inter-Ward/Village Nine-a-side Knockout Football Championship concluded on Sunday with a single goal securing victory...…Peeping Tom kaieteur News- A few years ago, I was at a private hospital watching the workers “clock-in” to work... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]