-bail still refused
The preliminary inquiry (PI) into the advocating a terrorist act charge against Oliver Hinckson began yesterday with the first prosecution witness testifying.
This was after Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys ruled against putting down the uttering of seditious statements charge indefinitely as had been requested by the prosecution on the last occasion.
However, since the magistrate will not be hearing the two charges simultaneously, Hinckson’s attorney Nigel Hughes said yesterday that he planned to ask that another magistrate be assigned to hear the uttering seditious statements PI in order to move the process forward.
Despite Hughes raising the issue of bail again yesterday, Hinckson was further remanded.
The court convened around 2 pm yesterday with Magistrate Gilhuys asking the prosecutor to reply to the defence’s arguments against the prosecution’s request to have the seditious statements charge put down sine die.
Police Prosecutor Joseph Tyndall did not put up any legal arguments but reiterated that his advice from the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was to request that the sedition matter be put down and that separate PIs be done for each charge, since they are both indictable.
At this point, Hughes told the court that since the prosecution was not able to move forward with the seditious statements matter then Hinckson should be given bail, especially since he could not be incarcerated while his matter was put down indefinitely. Hughes said that everyone was entitled to a fair trial and since there was no prospect of one within reasonable time, the accused should be released on bail.
Asked to respond, Tyndall requested ten minutes to seek further advice on the matter. When he returned and reiterated what he had said earlier, Hughes raised the question of where Tyndall’s advice was coming from. Tyndall replied that he was not at liberty to say. However when pressed by the magistrate he said the DPP’s Chambers.
Hinckson’s other lawyer Leslie Sobers questioned how it could be possible for a man to be incarcerated and a request to be made for his matter to be put down sine die.
Gilhuys then said that he had already raised this point at the last court date and did not understand the prosecution’s reasoning. He then ruled that he would not put down the seditious statements charge and that the advocacy of a terrorist act matter will move forward
The prosecution then put its first witness, Government Information Agency Editor-in-Chief Michael Gordon, on the stand. After about 20 minutes of questions from the prosecutor, Magistrate Gilhuys adjourned the matter until April 24.
Yesterday was Hinckson’s fourth appearance before Magistrate Gilhuys.
A trail of intrigue has followed the case since the controversial ex-army officer was remanded on March 11 by Principal Magistrate Melissa Robertson-Ogle after she had read the two indictable charges to him. After he was refused bail in the magistrate’s court, Hinckson’s lawyers had filed an application for bail in the High Court. They also filed a motion seeking a declaration that Hinckson’s statements, made on February 1 at a press conference at City Hall, were not in contravention of any laws of Guyana and were consistent with his right to free speech in expressing concern over matters of national interest.
Both the bail application and the motion were later withdrawn, however, when it was realised that they were preventing the case from moving forward in the magistrate’s court. The case has attracted comments from individuals as well as organisations. (Melissa Charles)
