Courtroom is no marketplace – Magistrate to man trying to negotiate bail

David Pierre Junior, a 34-year-old security guard charged with attempted murder, had his bail reduced on Tuesday during a virtual court appearance before Principal Magistrate Faith McGusty.
Junior, who was initially granted bail in the sum of $250,000 on February 28, returned to the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court via Zoom, made an emotional outburst, claiming he had been unfairly kept in prison and denied justice.
“I’ve been in here for two months. I keep asking them [the Guyana Prison Service] if I’m on bail, and they keep telling me no,” he said as he pleaded with the court.
Magistrate McGusty firmly corrected him, stating, “Sir, you’ve been on bail since February 28. You just haven’t paid the bail.”

Junior insisted that he only had access to $200,000, which he said his family could provide. He begged for a reduction, explaining that they were unable to come up with the remaining $50,000 required for his release
The Magistrate however, made it clear that the court is not a place for bargaining. “This is not a market where someone sets a price and you try to cut it down,” she told him. “I called my price, and you pick.”
However, Magistrate McGusty did lower the bail amount, shaving $25,000 off the original figure.
The charge against Junior stems from an incident on December 30, 2024, during which he allegedly wounded Anand Ramkissoon on Alexander Street, Georgetown, with intent to commit murder while in the company of another person. During his first appearance on January 4, the court was informed that police had video footage implicating Junior, and he reportedly admitted to chopping the victim.
However, Junior has maintained that the footage was incomplete and did not show how the altercation began. He claimed he was also chopped during the incident and acted in self-defence.
At that earlier hearing, the prosecution had objected to bail on the grounds that the victim was in critical condition and the charge was a serious one. Junior was remanded at the time.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the prosecution revealed that they were still not in possession of the case file and had not yet received the necessary statements to proceed with the matter.
The case was adjourned to May 2.