After heated arguments from both the prosecution and the defence, Oliver Hinckson was once again refused bail, while the Preliminary Inquiry (PI) into the advocating a terrorist act charge against him was adjourned to facilitate the prosecution’s request to once again seek advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The uttering of seditious statements charge against Hinckson was not mentioned in court yesterday.
Yesterday’s hearing began with the prosecution recalling its first witness Government Information Agency Editor in Chief Michael Gordon to the stand. However, his testimony was cut short when Hinckson’s lawyers objected to the line of questioning by the prosecution. According to them Prosecutor Robert Tyndall was leading to witness to give evidence he knew nothing about. Magistrate Gordon Gilhuys said he had spoken to the prosecution on this issue on the last occasion and would not allow him to continue in this vein.
Another objection was raised by defence when the situation reoccurred. At this point Magistrate Gilhuys requested that one of the lawyers take up the position of lead defence counsel, since he was having difficulty recording what all of them were saying.
Attorney-at-law Vic Puran took up the ‘honours’ and gave the defence’s objection, pointing out that after adjourning on the last occasion for the same reasons, the prosecution was still continuing on the same path. He said the prosecution was touching on issues that affect the principles of a fair trial and that an individual was only authorised to testify from what he saw happen; hearsay could not be included.
Tyndall then asked for an adjournment so that the witness could be recalled.
Magistrate Gilhuys replied that there were some legal issues to be dealt with but excused the prosecution.
A second witness, Onika Jones, was then called to the stand, accompanied by arguments from the defence. Magistrate Gilhuys said that it did not matter how many arguments were made since there was an application for adjournment. Jones then stepped down.
Puran proceeded to object to Tyndall’s application on a number of grounds: firstly an application for adjournment has to be judicial; secondly, the prosecution could not plead its own fault in requesting an adjournment; thirdly, because the accused was being refused bail on a bailable offence he was guaranteed under the Constitution the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and a trial within reasonable time; finally that the conduct of the prosecutor has shown his inability to conduct the PI and if the state considered the matter serious, a state prosecutor should be prosecuting.
Puran said it was unfair that when objections were taken, “a lay prosecutor” had to “run” for advice. He said Tyndall was demonstrating no due diligence, but his “stratagem” to keep Hinckson incarcerated with no evidence being taken, therefore the learned magistrate should discharge the matters and let the state reinstitute the charges when it was prepared.
Another of Hinckson’s attorneys, Gregory Gaskin, then rose to address the court. He said the situation was a travesty of justice, since “we’re sitting here” to decide whether or not a prosecutor was capable of prosecuting.
He urged the magistrate to “draw a line in the sand” to the state; that if prosecution could not move forward then he would “send the man to the streets.”
However, Magistrate Gilhuys replied that he was not going to express those sentiments and then adjourned for the prosecution to return to the DPP.
Hinckson’s attorneys had indicated that they would take the sedition charge back to Principal Magistrate Melissa Robertson-Ogle, since Tyndall had requested it be put down sine die. However, no application has been made so far in this regard.
Magistrate Gilhuys had ruled that he would not put down the matter indefinitely, and it is unclear what the prosecution’s next move with regard to this charge.
Hinckson who was charged indictably with advocating a terrorist act and uttering seditious statements has been incarcerated since the charges were instituted against him on March 11.
He returns to Court Two today.
