CCJ suspends Appeal Court’s decision in Marcus Bisram case

Jun 13, 2021 News

Murder accused, Marcus Bisram.

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has moved to suspend a judgment by the Appeal Court in the matter where Guyanese -American philanthropist, Marcus Bisram, was ordered to face fresh proceedings for the murder of Berbice Carpenter, Faiyaz Narinedatt.

The CCJ made the order on Friday after a preliminary hearing of an appeal filed by Bisram and his legal team. During the hearing, the CCJ ordered that the Appeal Court’s judgment in the Bisram case be suspended until the matter is heard and determined by the judges of the CCJ.

The CCJ also ordered that no steps be taken to rearrest Bisram, but made it pellucid that he must surrender all of his passports by 12:00noon on Monday to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and further, to report every Monday morning to the Divisional Police Commander in Berbice.

Following the decision of the Court of Appeal earlier this month, Bisram’s legal team, which includes lawyers Darshan Ramdhanie, QC; Arudranauth Gossai; Dexter Todd and Sanjeev Datadin, had moved to the CCJ seeking leave to appeal against the decision.

On June 1 last, the Court of Appeal handed down a ruling in favour of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, who had asked that decision by High Court Judge, Simone Morris-Ramlall, be overturned.

Morris-Ramlall had acquitted Bisram of the murder charge despite orders by the DPP that he be committed to face a murder trial in the High Court. Bisram, who was extradited from the United States to face charges for the 2016 crime, had previously 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 Justice 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, Gossai, cross-appealed challenging the DPP’s right to order the Magistrate.

During the hearing in the Appeal Court, 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.” The Appeal Court ruled in favour of the DPP instructing that the case returns to the lower court for trial.