While Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall ruled in his favour quashing a committal order which would have resulted in him being tried for murder, Marcus Bisram is appealing an aspect of the judge’s ruling with which he says he is dissatisfied.
The parts of the decision complained of are: where the Judge ruled that Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act is not unconstitutional and where he said the judge refused to award him monetary damages for his unlawful/illegal imprisonment.
Outlining the grounds of his appeal, the former murder accused said that Justice Morris-Ramlall erred in finding that section 72 was not unconstitutional by basing her ruling on cases decided in Guyana before the enactment of Article 122 A (1) of the Constitution when those cases no longer represent the law.
He contends, too, that the judge erred in law in refusing to order monetary/vindicatory damages to him for the period of time he was unlawfully in prison because of the actions of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the State.
As a result he wants the Court of Appeal to declare/order that Section 72 is unconstitutional in view of Article 122 A (1) or alternatively a declaration that section 72 has been repealed by Act No. 6 of 2001 enacted as Article 122 A (1).
Finally he wants the appellate court to order that he be awarded compensatory and vindicatory damages.
Section 72 (2) (i) and (ii) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Law Procedure Act, Chapter 10:01, empowers the DPP to order a Magistrate to re-open a preliminary inquiry (PI) and commit an accused for trial.
Article 122 A provides, “all Courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control.”
Citing case law authority on this constitutional point raised by Bisram, Justice Morris-Ramlall rejected his submission that section 72 is unconstitutional or contravenes the doctrine of separation of powers.
Justice Morris-Ramlall’s ruling declared unlawful the directive given by the DPP that Bisram be committed to stand trial for the murder of Faiyaz Narinedatt, while ordering his immediate release from custody.
The judge ruled among other things that his continued incarceration since his arrest on March 30th is unlawful.
The DPP has since appealed the ruling.
Bisram’s contention is that the DDP’s actions infringed his constitutional rights provided for in Articles 122 A and 144 (1) and the separation of powers doctrine.
Bisram who was extradited to Guyana from the United States in November last year was charged with the murder of Narinedatt and remanded to prison.
Following a preliminary inquiry, however, he was discharged but rearrested mere hours after on the direction of the DPP.
