Appearing before the Guyana Court of Appeal on Friday, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack SC maintained that her order directing that murder accused Marcus Bisram be committed to stand trial was lawfully made.
During the hearing via a Zoom meeting, Ali-Hack argued that the decision by Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall to nullify the DPP’s direction to Magistrate Renita Singh to reopen the preliminary inquiry into the charge that he was freed of was erroneous. She told the court that where there is a discharge of an accused person, the DPP may send for a deposition and the DPP may reopen the case if the DPP is of the opinion that there is enough evidence for the Magistrate to admit the person to trial. Additionally, the DPP may give further direction as he\she sees proper. The DPP may also add to, alter or revoke any direction, Ali-Hack argued. She referred to Section 72 (2) (i) and (ii) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Law Procedure Act, which empowers the DPP to order a Magistrate to re-open a PI and commit an accused for trial.
In her argument, she said that the defence has said that the DPP did not have the relevant depositions but she contended that the DPP was represented in court by the Prosecutor. She further argued that the prosecutor assigned to the case acts as an agent on behalf of the office of the DPP and that the prosecutor kept her informed at every step of the court proceedings and that the DPP herself is not bound to check each document in the case file.
She further argued that there is sufficient evidence for Bisram’s committal and that Justice Morris-Ramlall’s decision was against the weight of the evidence.
Ali-Hack argued that the main eyewitness has given enough information in his evidence-in-chief and cross-examination for Bisram to be admitted to stand trial before a jury. She argued that the evidence is direct and that the testimony is backed by details which only an eyewitness would be able to provide. In her argument she said that the Magistrate therefore should focus on the direct evidence submitted by the witness. She further said that this would provide for a jury to then make a determination for a conviction should the evidence be sufficient. Ali-Hack further noted that the purpose of the jury is to decide what the facts of the matter are after all the evidence is presented.
The hearing was adjourned until January 13th when the DPP will continue her arguments which will be followed by arguments by Bisram’s attorney.
Bisram was released from prison in June, after Justice Morris-Ramlall ruled that he was unlawfully committed to stand trial for the murder of Faiyaz Nainedatt. Following this decision, Justice Morris-Ramlall also granted him an order prohibiting the DPP from bringing an indictment in the High Court charging him with the capital offence.
It was reported that the judge found that the directive given by the DPP that Bisram be committed to stand trial for the murder was unlawful and ordered his immediate release from custody. She further stated that Bisram’s continued incarceration since his arrest on March 30th was unlawful and also granted an order to Bisram nullifying the DPP’s direction to Magistrate Singh to re-open the preliminary inquiry into the charge against him. The judge said that it was unreasonable and ignored relevant considerations.
Bisram had contended that the DPP’s actions infringed his constitutional rights provided for in Articles 122 A and 144 (1) and the separation of powers doctrine.
