Magistrate Alex Moore has recused himself from hearing the case against Marcus Bisram, who is accused of directing the murder of a Corentyne carpenter, in wake of a petition being sent to the Chancellor of the Judiciary accusing him of showing favour to the defence during a hearing.
Before his announcement of the decision, which was made during a hearing at the Springlands Magistrate’s Court yesterday, state prosecutor Stacy Goodings indicated that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had written to acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards requesting that the magistrate recuse himself. As a result, Goodings noted that they would be seeking an adjournment until the Chancellor had the opportunity to address the request. However, Moore subsequently disclosed that the Chancellor had forwarded him a letter of complaint and asked for him to respond, which he did and hand delivered. He said it was then that the Chancellor requested that he recuse himself from the matter.
According to Magistrate Moore, while the issues were being dealt with internally, the petition to the Chancellor to request him to recuse himself had been made public. He further noted that the Chancellor’s reasons for the request were that since the matter became a public issue due to the petition making its way to the media, his integrity and the case’s integrity would be questioned. According to him, the Chancellor also noted that any decision he made going forward in the case might be questioned. Magistrate Moore then said that out of respect for the Chancellor he was complying with the request to recuse himself.
Bisram’s attorney, Sanjeev Datadin, pointed out that the DPP had not sent the defence any letter of complaint or petition. He then requested that a note be made on the case jacket that Magistrate Moore was recusing himself from the matter.
Datadin also argued for disclosure of statements to still be made as he pointed out that the statements have to be disclosed to the defence and not the magistrate.
The matter was adjourned until January 13, 2020, when it is due to be called before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan for reassignment.
‘Magistrate shopping’
Section 12 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Magistrates) Act provides that the Chancellor may “direct that a particular magistrate shall not adjudicate on a particular cause or matter coming before him because of the magistrate’s personal interest in that cause or matter or for any other sufficient reason and shall in any such case assign another magistrate to adjudicate on that cause or matter.”
Following the hearing yesterday, Datadin accused the prosecution of “magistrate shopping,” which he said will cause much delay in the case. He added that it was never stated in the letter of complaint or the media why the magistrate had agreed with the defence at the hearing that prompted the concerns. “The defence said in open court to everyone [that] whatever statement you have we will consent to it being admitted, whatever videos you wish to produce we will consent to it being admitted, whatever photographs you want we will consent to it being admitted because we believe you have no evidence. So, whatever it is you want to bring, we will consent to it all going in as evidence. We needed to cross-examine one witness for one hour or less. And the magistrate in response to that agreed that the paper committal would be appropriate,” he said, referring to Magistrate Moore’s decision to proceed by way of paper committal proceedings instead of holding a full preliminary inquiry into the charge. Magistrate Moore also insisted that the proceedings could be completed before the end of the year and noted that he would “happily discharge” the matter if it was being delayed.
In supporting Datadin’s position, fellow defence attorney Dexter Todd said whatever the magistrate enforced during the previous hearing was in keeping with the law. “There is no merit in the complaint, there is no merit in the prosecutrix making a complaint to the [DPP] and there is no merit in the family making a complaint,” he said.
Todd added that what is happening presently will be a serious development in the country and for jurisprudence “and we are even going to call out the Bar Association on this because you can’t have a situation where people come up with all sort of frivolous excuses to impute the integrity of a judicial officer without any solid evidence.”
He suggested that it “opens doors” to families potentially requesting a new magistrate if they do not like something about the magistrate handling their matter.
Todd also questioned what would happen when the prosecution shops for a magistrate and selects one that agrees with it on everything. He noted that the prosecution in any country is to ensure that they present based on evidence that is fair and that justice is done at the end of the day, and not merely to convict persons. “What we see playing out here is definitely a situation where the magistrate is just agreeing with what is [the] constitutional right of the accused as well he is balancing both, he is balancing the interest of the prosecution and he is balancing the interest of the accused, he is supposed to do that,” he added.
Further, Todd questioned the problem with a magistrate selecting a paper committal instead of a full preliminary inquiry. “It doesn’t defeat any of the purposes; the prosecution will not be disadvantaged in any way,” he opined.
Stabroek News has seen the petition to the Chancellor, which argues that Magistrate Moore’s demeanour during a hearing at the Whim Magistrate’s Court “both in action and language” was openly prejudicial in favour of Bisram and his attorney, Datadin.
The petition states Magistrate Moore’s “conduct was clearly inimical to the justice sought by the aggrieved family of the murdered victim.”
Additionally, it was also highlighted that during the court proceedings “the magistrate never allowed the prosecutor [Goodings] to present her case with coherence, clarity and logical sequence.” Instead, it stated, “He [the magistrate] and Mr. Datadin in obscenely loud voices, continuously interrupted the prosecutor in an effort to disorient her argument. It was perceptibly evident that the magistrate demonstrated no interest in having the matter methodically presented by the prosecutor. Falling into fits of unjustifiable rage, he often banged his fist on the table and became vociferously menacing towards the prosecutor. In monopolising the court hearing, he overtly attempted to drive fear into her and silence into docile submission. The method he utilised was an obvious deviation from established and time honoured practice in judicial considerations.”
Furthermore, the petition also stressed that while the magistrate has a duty to execute responsibilities devolved upon his office, he must do so dispassionately and with complete fidelity to the highest standard of jurisprudence. “He must be neutral or appear to be neutral in carrying out the mandate of his status,” it added.
As a result, the petition requested that the Chancellor have Magistrate Moore recuse himself in the best interest of the justice.
Bisram was extradited to Guyana late last month and was remanded to prison after he was charged with procuring and commanding the murder of carpenter Faiyaz Narinedatt in 2016. The charge against him states that between October 31st, 2016 and November 1st, 2016, at Number 70 Village, Corentyne, he counselled, procured and commanded Harri Paul Parsram, Radesh Motie, Niran Yacoob, Diodath Datt and Orlando Dickie to murder Narinedatt.
