Former murder accused Marcus Bisram has undertaken not to leave Guyana pending the appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, of the judgment granting him his freedom.
Maintaining that her order directing Bisram be committed to stand trial was lawfully made, the DPP in her appeal has cited a number of errors which she said Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall made in arriving at her ruling.
She is asking the Appeal Court to set aside/reverse Justice Morris-Ramlall’s decision, while arguing, among other things, that the judge erred in law in striking out parts of the state’s affidavit without giving it an opportunity to be heard.
The DPP also wants an order for an interim stay of the order made by Justice Morris-Ramlall quashing the committal until the appeal would have been fully heard and determined.
Bisram, through his new attorneys Murseline Bacchus SC and Arudranauth Gossai, has advanced that the DPP’s sole argument for the stay is that he may leave the jurisdiction, but says that this is without merit or basis in law.
Nevertheless, in a responding affidavit, Bisram has said that he would be willing to give an undertaking not to leave the jurisdiction providing that the State also gives an undertaking not to file any indictment or new charges against him.
At a hearing yesterday before Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory, both Bisram and the Solicitor General, who represented the DPP, agreed to the undertaking
Bisram was released from prison earlier this month after Justice Morris-Ramlall ruled 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 had found 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.
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.
It is the DPP’s contention, however, that her directions, given under Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act were lawful, proper and reasonable. In fact, she argues that Bisram’s arrest, too, was lawful and proper, and was asking the Full Court that he be committed to stand trial at the next sitting of the High Court’s criminal assizes.
