Having concluded arguments on Wednesday, the Guyana Court of Appeal has reserved its ruling in a bid by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, to overturn an order of the High Court freeing Guyana-born US businessman Marcus Bisram of the October 2016 murder of Berbice carpenter Faiyaz Narinedatt.
Following a Preliminary Inquiry, Magistrate Renita Singh had discharged the charge against Bisram citing insufficient evidence. However, immediately after the discharge, the DPP invoked her powers under Section 72 (1) and (2) (ii) (b) of the Criminal Law Offences Act, by requesting the depositions in the matter and directed the Magistrate to reopen the inquiry with a view of committing Bisram.
The Magistrate duly complied and Bisram was rearrested and placed on remand pending trial at the High Court in Berbice. Through judicial review proceedings, Bisram’s lawyers asked that the DPP’s directive for committal be quashed as it was unlawful.
After reviewing the evidence from the depositions, High Court Judge Simone Morris-Ramlall quashed as being unlawful the DPP’s directive and among other things, granted an order prohibiting the DPP from bringing a murder indictment against Bisram.
In a 32-page judgment, Justice Morris-Ramlall held that the evidence disclosed by the prosecution did not meet the required evidentiary threshold to support calling upon Bisram to lead a defence at the close of the prosecution’s case. In fact, the Judge ruled that no prima facie case had been made out against him to put him on trial by a jury before a Judge.
“…The evidence is insufficient, or, in other words, it is not of the quality that a reasonable jury properly directed could safely convict on it. The state or extent of the evidence is a relevant factor that should have been taken into account by the DPP in arriving at her decisions.”
According to the Judge, the evidence of one “Chunilall” was the body and soul of the case against Bisram. She said that there was no other evidence, direct or circumstantial, linking Bisram to the murder charge.
The Judge held, “At the close of the case for the prosecution, the evidence of Chunilall was totally discredited and rendered manifestly unreliable. This is the kind of the case that required the Magistrate to be particularly concerned about credibility as the evidence of Chunilall is to my mind worthless.”
Dissatisfied with the judge’s decision, the DPP filed an appeal asking that it be overturned.
Ali-Hack contends that her directive was lawful. She contends that there is sufficient evidence against Bisram to warrant a committal for him to face trial by a jury before a judge. The DPP also contends that the evidence is sufficient, and any reasonable jury, if properly directed, can safely convict.
According to the DPP, the evidence of “Chunilall”, was admissible evidence, and the issue that arises is the issue of credibility, which is an issue for a jury to determine.
“This is a proper case for a committal, for it to go to trial in the High Court,” Ali-Hack said in her submissions to the appellate court.
Bisram’s lawyer, Arudranauth Gossai, on the other hand, is asking the appellate court to uphold the decision of the High Court. Given the provisions of Article 122 A of the Constitution of Guyana, Gossai contends that the DPP’s directive for Bisram to be committed, even though he was discharged after a PI, amounts to obvious judicial interference.
According to Gossai, the directive from the DPP to the Magistrate, to commit Bisram to stand trial, offends the separation of powers’ doctrine. He contends that the determination of whether a prima facie case was made out is a judicial process that must be determined by the Magistrate in the preliminary inquiry.
Five other men: Orlando Dickie, Radesh Motie, Diodath Datt, Harri Paul Parsram, and Niran Yacoob are currently awaiting trial at the High Court for Narinedatt’s murder.
