Marcus Bisram case reopens upon instruction from DPP

ꟷ Magistrate maintains lack of evidence to commit accused

Less than one week after a no-case submission was upheld by Magistrate Renita Singh in the Marcus Bisram murder preliminary inquiry (PI), this magistrate was ordered to reopen the case on Thursday; but she is maintaining that there is not sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial in the High Court.

Bisram was, earlier in the week, freed of the indictment of murder committed on Faiyaz Narinedatt, who was killed between October 31 and November 1, 2016. Bisram was implicated in the murder, and was extradited from the United States, after which he was charged.
After he was freed on Monday last, Bisram maintained that he was innocent of the allegation. Nevertheless, hours after he was freed, Bisram was rearrested upon the instruction of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack.
However, at the court on Thursday, the decision to reopen the care sparked much debate, as was anticipated.

Defense Attorney Glenn Hanoman argued that certain procedures must be followed before the matter could be reopened. Referring to the relevant section of the law, Hanoman said the DPP must receive the deposition and other evidence, and only after assessing that evidence can the DPP direct the court to reopen the case. As such, he requested that the court enquire about the deposition.
Magistrate Singh, leaning on the side of caution, said she did not send the deposition to the DPP, but State Prosecutor Stacy Goodings told the court that the DPP had received the deposition on Monday, and that had prompted the DPP’s letter to reopen the case.

However, Hanoman argued that it was only the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who can sign a letter instructing the court to reopen a case, and since Goodings had received the deposition only late on Monday evening, it was impossible for the deposition to have been sent to the DPP. He said Bisram was therefore being wrongfully detained. However, he said he could not ask the court to release Bisram, since the court had not been responsible for his arrest.
It was then that the Police Prosecutor informed the court that she was not aware of the reason for Bisram’s rearrest.
Referring to the letter which was sent to the court from the DPP, Hanoman said it stated that the court must reopen the case with the view to committing Bisram to stand trial in the High Court. This, he said, is an infringement of the rights of the accused. The Defense, he noted, intends to raise those issues in the High Court.
In response, Goodings explained that, by law, if the DPP issues an instruction to reopen a case, that instruction must be complied with. She further noted that if the court, which is a creature of the State, wishes to disregard the DPP’s instructions, the law gives the DPP other options on the way forward.
The Bisram matter was eventually adjourned to Monday, April 6, because the Magistrate informed that she has to be properly advised.
One of Bisram’s attorneys, Dexter Todd, told the media that the case was no longer about Bisram.
However, he noted that the Defense team would challenge the directions of the DPP under sections 72:1 and 2 of the law, which does not give her an unfettered power.
“So, we will definitely have to challenge the directions under those sections in relation to the matter,” Todd said. He added that the case will be an interesting one for all Guyanese.