Magistrate Renita Singh will next week rule on whether it is necessary to visit the reported scene of the crime when the Preliminary Inquiry (PI) into the murder charge against Marcus Brian Bisram continues.
It is alleged that that between October 31, 2016 and November 1, 2016, at Number 70 Village, Corentyne, Bisram counselled, procured and commanded Harri Paul Parsram, Radesh Motie, Niran Yacoob, Diodath Datt and Orlando Dickie to murder Faiyaz Narinedatt.
The five accused, who were charged with Narinedatt’s murder, have since been committed to stand trial in the High Court. Their trial is expected to commence on March 3.
Bisram is being represented in court by attorneys-at-law Sanjeev Datadin, Dexter Todd and Glenn Hanoman, while the state is being represented by attorney Stacy Goodings.
Magistrate Singh, who is presiding over the PI, ruled on Thursday after submissions from the defence that the statements of the five other accused and connected statements will not be accepted.
In submissions, the state had reportedly presented statements from all witnesses. However, attorney Sanjeev Datadin told the court that the five other accused, who he is also representing, are not willing to give any evidence and so their statements could not be included.
Meanwhile, there were also arguments as to the location of one witness, with the state informing the court that based on information received the witness, who is residing overseas, had moved from one location to the next.
Through a police inspector, the court heard that the local police’s counterparts overseas had been briefed with the new information in efforts to locate the witness.
Datadin then argued that that witness’s statement should not be included. However, Magistrate Singh indicated that she disagreed with such. Datadin also argued that visiting the alleged crime scene would prolong the matter.
Meanwhile, attorney Hanoman, who recently joined the defence team, argued that the issue of visiting the scene only arises if there are any issues with the location while witnesses are giving evidence. According to him, it is only then appropriate for an application to be made to visit the scene, as he noted that there is no issue with the location. He said, too, that photographic evidence was also submitted.
The magistrate then adjourned the matter until next Thursday as she said she needed to read and seek some clarity before deciding on whether it was necessary to visit the scene.
Furthermore, she noted, that the court will also be apprised of the location of the witness then and, if she does rule that they will visit the scene, they would do so on the same day, after which the state will be called on to close its case.
