The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled that Guyana’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack, did not have the power to direct a magistrate to commit an accused person to stand trial.
Guyanese-American businessman, Marcus Bisram, had filed an appeal challenging the Guyana Court of Appeal’s ruling that he stand trial for the 2016 murder of Faiyaz Narinedatt, a 27-year-old father of two, who was killed on November 1, 2016. Narinedatt’s death was initially reported to be the result of a hit-and-run accident.
His attorney, Darshan Ramdhanie, QC, had asked the CCJ, the country’s highest and final court, to strike down Section 72 (1) and (2) (ii) (b) of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act which empowers the DPP to direct a magistrate to commit an accused person to stand trial in circumstances where the magistrate, after conducting a Preliminary Inquiry (PI), discharges that accused person.
CCJ President, Justice Adrian Saunders, delivering the ruling, said however that nothing prevents the DPP from re-arresting and charging Bisram if fresh evidence is found.
“The Court also found that it would be unjust, in all of the circumstances, for Bisram to be made to answer any charge of murder in this case on the same evidence as was presented to the magistrate. However, because Bisram, at least in terms of the law, was never placed in jeopardy, nothing prevents the DPP from having him re-arrested and charged again if fresh evidence was obtained linking him to the alleged murder,” Justice Saunders said.
The CCJ also declared that section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act violates the separation of powers and is also inconsistent with articles 122A and 144 of the Constitution.
The CCJ said if the DPP wants to instruct a magistrate in the future to commit any accused person to stand trial, the DPP will have to move to the High Court first.
“Until the National Assembly makes suitable provision, [Section] 72 is modified to excise those provisions permitting the DPP to direct the magistrate. In lieu thereof, a DPP aggrieved at the discharge of an accused by a magistrate after the whole of the proceedings at a PI, may apply ex parte to a judge of the Supreme Court for an order that the discharged person be arrested and committed, if the judge is of the view that the material placed before the judge justified such a course of action,” Justice Saunders said.
In June 2021, the Caribbean Court of Justice had ordered that Bisram be released from prison until the hearing and determination of his appeal. He also had to forfeit his passport and report weekly to the police until the determination of the appeal.
Following the ruling, the CJ ordered that Bisram’s passport be returned to him.
On May 31, 2021, the Court of Appeal granted an order filed by the DPP, and overturned the orders granted by High Court Judge, Simone Morris-Ramlall who had ruled that the incarceration of Bisram was unlawful and ordered that he is released.
During a preliminary inquiry in 2020, Magistrate Renita Singh had initially freed Bisram after she found that the evidence given by the star witness for the prosecution was “unreliable” under cross-examination. However, the DPP ordered the magistrate to commit Bisram to the High Court to stand trial for the indictment.
CMC/
