Marcus Bisram has been granted another reprieve from incarceration following an order from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) yesterday staying a recent ruling of the Guyana Court of Appeal that he be committed to stand trial for murder.
Given the ruling of the appellate court, Bisram was expected to be placed back into custody.
However, his attorneys, Darshan Ramdhanie QC and Arudranauth Gossai, were yesterday granted leave by the CCJ to appeal that ruling, which the Trinidad-based court of last resort has stayed until Bisram’s appeal is fully heard and determined.
In the meantime, Bisram will remain out of prison.
Gossai explained to the Stabroek News that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has been “ordered not to take any steps to arrest or detain Bisram.”
On May 30th, the local appellate court found that the DPP had not acted unconstitutionally by ordering that Bisram be tried for the murder of Faiyaz Narinedatt.
Before the conclusion of that hearing, DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack had asked Bisram’s attorney to hand him over to law enforcement, even as she signaled that the state would take steps to have him placed in custody.
However, signaling his intention to appeal to the CCJ, Gossai had begged the Court to grant an interim stay, but his request was denied.
The DPP had appealed a High Court ruling quashing her order that Bisram be tried for Narinedatt’s murder.
Bisram, who was extradited to Guyana from the United States a year ago, was charged with the murder of Narinedatt and remanded to prison.
Following a PI, however, he was discharged but rearrested mere hours after on the direction of the DPP. Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall would later rule in his favour, quashing the committal order.
To the DPP’s appeal, Bisram filed a cross appeal, challenging Ali-Hack’s directive, which he argued conflicted with provisions of the Constitution.
Ali-Hack argued, however, that her directive for Bisram to be committed to stand trial was proper, reasonable and lawfully made in accordance with Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, with which the appellate court found favour.
Section 72 (2) (i) and (ii) (a) and (b) empowers the DPP to order a Magistrate to re-open a PI and commit an accused for trial.
Gossai, on the other hand, had argued that Section 72 was unconstitutional in view of Article 122 A (1) and asked the appellate court to declare that section repealed by Act No. 6 of 2001 enacted as Article 122 A (1).
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.”
In interpreting this provision, Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards, who heard the appeal along with Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud, had said that contrary to Gossai’s arguments, the DPP’s order was not an exercise of executive power over the magistrate, nor did it amount to the magistrate not being able to independently exercise her functions.
The appellate court noted instead that Section 72 had specifically endowed the DPP with the narrow power to issue the order in the circumstance where, having reviewed the depositions, the DPP believes that there is enough evidence warranting a committal.
All the surrounding factual issues, the court said, are to properly be determined by a jury at a trial.
Gossai had vehemently argued that Ali-Hack’s order to the magistrate in effect contravened Article 122 as an attempt to usurp the judicial function of the court by the DPP who falls under the Executive arm of government.
