Citing a number of errors in the judgment granting former murder accused Marcus Bisram his freedom, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack has filed an appeal in which she maintains her order directing that he be committed to stand trial was lawfully made.
The DPP is asking the Full Court to set aside/ reverse Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall’s decision, while arguing, among other things, that she erred in law in striking out parts of the state’s affidavit without giving it an opportunity to be heard.
Bisram was released from prison last week Tuesday after Justice Morris-Ramlall ruled the day before that he was unlawfully committed to stand trial. She also granted him an order prohibiting the DPP from bringing an indictment in the High Court charging him with the capital offence.
The judge found that the directive given by the DPP that Bisram be committed to stand trial for the murder of Faiyaz Narinedatt to be unlawful and ordered his immediate release from custody.
The state is arguing, however, that the judge erred and was misconceived in law when she found that the DPP did not properly follow the procedure outlined in Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act.
It is the DPP’s contention that her directions, given under Section 72, were lawful, proper and reasonable. In fact, she argues that Bisram’s arrest, too, was lawful and proper, and she is asking the Full Court that he be committed to stand trial at the next sitting of the High Court’s criminal assizes.
Declaring Bisram’s arrest unlawful, Justice Morris-Ramlall nullified the DPP’s direction to Magistrate Renita Singh to re-open the preliminary inquiry (PI) into the charge against him, saying that it was unreasonable and ignored relevant considerations.
The state is contending that the judge erred in law in finding that section 72 (1) is a prerequisite to be complied with in all cases before the DPP can act pursuant to section 72 (2).
Section 72 (2) (i) and (ii) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Law Procedure Act empowers the DPP to order a Magistrate to re-open a PI and commit an accused for trial.
The judge had reasoned that Section 72 (1) is a prerequisite for the important purpose of ensuring that the DPP is in a position “to make a considered decision and to properly exercise her discretion.”
“The DPP must be in a position to and must actually and personally consider all of the depositions and other documents and things which formed the record before determining whether to remit the matter to the Magistrate with directions,” Justice Morris-Ramlall had said.
The state’s argument on this point had been that the prosecutor assigned to the case, who acts as an agent on behalf of the office of the DPP, had kept her informed at every step of the court proceedings and that the DPP herself did not have to physically go through each document in the case file.
Arguing that there is sufficient evidence for Bisram’s committal, the state has advanced that Justice Morris-Ramlall’s decision was against the weight of the evidence. As a result, it contends that she erred in finding that the evidence disclosed in the PI did not meet the requisite evidentiary threshold to support calling on Bisram to lead a defence when there was evidence to support a prima facie case.
