With questions still to be answered as to whether the Director of Public Prosecutions acted rightfully in ordering a Magistrate to commit Millionaire, Marcus Bisram, to stand a high court trial for ordering the killing of Berbice carpenter for refusal of his sexual advancement back in 2016, the Caribbean Court of Justice today heard arguments from both sides.
It is set to make a decision soon.
In court today, the matter was heard before CCJ President, Justice Adrian Saunders, and with several other Judges from the CCJ.
The murder accused, Bisram, was represented by Attorney at law, Dharshan Ramdhanie, who argued that DPP acting outside the law.
As such the decision to order Bisram committal was unlawful, she contended.
The DPP, on the other hand, insisted that law permits the body to order such action knowing the evidence provided to the court and by which the powers provided to them must allow them to act in a specified manner.
Bisram was charged for the 2016 murder of Berbice carpenter, Faiyaz Narinedatt, in a court in Guyana after fighting extradition from the United States of America.
The accused was fingered in ordering the beating and killing of the carpenter. He had earlier made sexual advances and he was refused. In court, the led evidence all went down to a young man, who had claimed that he had overheard Bisram order the killing.
However, when the matter came up before Magistrate Renita Singh, she had ruled that evidence led by a young man was not sufficient and that Bisram would be able to walk away from the charge during a young man said that all he said was not true because he was afraid of the police during cross-examination by Bisram’s lawyers
Subsequent to the hearing, the DPP sent a letter requesting for deposition and the magistrate was ordered to reopen the matter.
Stacy Gooding, who was the DPP Prosecutor at the time, told the court that she spoke with DPP, and in the conversation, the DPP related that they went through the evidence and through its powers under sections 72 (1) and (2) (ii) (b) of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, ordered the Magistrate commit.
On the orders of Bisram, the decision of the DPP was appealed in the high court. Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall granted an order of certiorari quashing a directive by the DPP to Magistrate Singh for Bisram to be committed to stand a high court trial.
The DPP appealed that ruling to the Appeal Court and won. The matter was later appealed by Bisram lawyers at the CCJ and the decision of the appeal court in Guyana was set aside.
Hearing arguments in the CCJ on the matter, Attorney Ramdhanie contended that the DPP acted outside of the law by taking away the right to a fair trial.
He pointed out that under section 122 A constitution, which speaks to the independence of the Judiciary, those rights are being infringed on. If there is to be a fair trial, we should have this serration of powers in order for other bodies or person to intervene in any processing.
Ramdhanie said that in this case, the DPP has completely rewritten the law and now if the case is ruled in the DDP favour the attorney will run into the procedural problem since Bisram was never committed to stand a high court but in fact ordered.
He said the DDP should have looked at the evidence then made a decision in this case and then made a decision to challenge the Magistrate decision instead of immedicable ordering the magistrate.
Shalimar Ali-Hack, the DPP, did not fall to the independence of the court since it did not interfere with the case but merely allow the case to continue in another court before a Judge and a Jury for a fair trial.
Ms. Hack explained that while in most instances, the DDP acted in the public interest–and knew of the evidence that was going to be presented to the court.
She prepared the two letters to the court before the deposition was created.
Additionally, Ms. Hack said that she found that the credulity of the witness was being questioned and that is the Job of the Judge in the high court.
She added that Bisram did not also lead his defence or call on any witnesses. The DPP worked within the confines of the law.
With both sides being heard on the matter, the CCJ has reserved its judgement on the matter.
