CCJ expresses concerns over Guyana’s DPP powers

Nov 13, 2021 News

---

– DPP stands ground on power to direct Magistrate

Kaieteur News – The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Thursday expressed its concern over Guyana’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, powers, as embedded in her under Section 72 (1) and (2) (ii) (b) of Guyana’s Criminal Law (Procedure) Act.
The concerns that were raised by the CCJ stemmed from the hearing of the oral presentations in the appeal that was filed by murder accused, Marcus Bisram, in which he challenged the constitutionality of the DPP’s directive to have him face a murder retrial.
Bisram’s lawyer, Dharshan Ramdhani, QC, asked the CCJ to declare Section 73 of Guyana’s Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, as unconstitutional – that section of the law, gives the DPP the power to instruct and direct a Magistrate to recommit a person to a retrial.
The DPP stand her grounds on her instruction to have Bisram tried again for the October 2016 murder of Berbice carpenter and father of two, Faiyaz Narinedatt. This is despite Magistrate Renita Singh ruling on two occasions that there was insufficient evidence for him to be committed to stand trial in the High Court for the offence.
Bisram was charged with murder on the basis that he counseled and procured the death of Narinedatt.
The DPP also told the CCJ that it is her constitutional function, to give such instruction, even if the Magistrate finds that there has been insufficient evidence on two occasions.
In his address, Ramdhani argued that the DPP is an executive of the government, and as such, she should not be given the power to authorise a member of the Judiciary.
CCJ President, Justice Adrian Saunders then asked the DPP whether she felt it was right for her to direct a court and a Magistrate, when she is not part of the Judiciary – the DPP did not agree with Justice Saunders and stated that those functions have existed for years and that she does not find that they amounted to interference with the independence of the judiciary.
Bisram’s lawyer told the CCJ that the law, which gives the DPP the power to instruct a Magistrate to recommit a person, is in contradiction with Article 122 A and 144 (1) of the Constitution – the DPP, however, disagreed with his point.
Ramdhani also argued that High Court Judge, Justice Morris-Ramlall, was right when she quashed the DPP’s and the Magistrate’s decision to have Bisram committed. He then highlighted that there was an error in law when the Guyana Court of Appeal, overturned Justice Morris-Ramlall’s decision. The DPP also disagreed with the lawyer claims that she instructed the retrial without seeing for herself a witness sworn out-of-court testimony.The matter was adjourned, and the CCJ is expected to engage with the DPP to possibly modify the statute, which gives her the power to direct a magistrate.

BACKGROUND
Back in June, the CCJ had moved to suspend a judgment by the Appeal Court in the matter, where Bisram was ordered to face fresh proceedings for the murder of the Berbice carpenter.After the preliminary hearing of an appeal filed by Bisram and his legal team, 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 had also ordered that no steps be taken to re-arrest Bisram, but made it pellucid that he must surrender all of his passports to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and, further, to report every Monday morning to the Divisional Police Commander in Berbice.
On June 1, 2021, Justice Morris-Ramlall 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 of America 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.
The Appeal Court, however, ruled in favour of the DPP instructing that the case return to the lower court for trial and this led to Bisram filing an appeal at the CCJ.

---

---