Arguments in an appeal filed by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, against a High Court order freeing Marcus Bisram for the 2016 murder of Berbice carpenter, Faiyaz Narinedatt, will be heard on December 18, 2020, by the Court of Appeal.
On Friday, Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory held a Case Management Conference (CMC) during which certain preliminary issues were ironed out.
It was alleged that on the day of the killing, Bisram had a party at his home which Narinedatt and others attended. Media reports are that Narinedatt went to the yard and was followed by Bisram, who reportedly came up behind him and started “feeling him up.” It was reported that Narinedatt slapped and chucked Bisram, who allegedly directed his friends to kill him.
According to reports, several men beat the carpenter and dumped his body on the Number 70 Village Corentyne, Berbice road. It was reported that they then drove over his body to make it appear like a vehicular accident.
In June 2020, High Court Judge Simone Morris-Ramlall issued an order quashing the directive by Ali-Hack for Bisram, a Guyana-born US-based businessman, to be committed to stand trial for the capital offence in the High Court. Notwithstanding the appeal, Bisram remains a free man.
Justice Ramlall had ruled that the DPP’s directive for committal of Bisram to Magistrate Renita Singh, who had discharged the charge against Bisram following a Preliminary Inquiry (PI) on March 30, 2020, was unlawful. On the day of the discharge, the DPP exercised her powers under section 72 (1) and (2) (ii) (b) of the Criminal Law Offences Act, by requesting that the depositions be sent to her and directing that the inquiry be reopened with a view to committing Bisram.
In compliance with the directions issued, the Magistrate reopened the preliminary inquiry on April 2, 2020, and called upon Bisram, who had been rearrested on March 30, 2020, to lead a defence. At the close of the case for the defence, the Magistrate found that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge and adjourned the matter to April 6, 2020, for further directions from the DPP.
On April 6, 2020, the DPP, under section 72 (2) (ii) (b) of the Criminal Law Offences Act, directed that Bisram be committed to stand trial in the High Court. This direction was duly complied with on the said date by the Magistrate.
Bisram then moved to the High Court appealing the DPP’s directive to the Magistrate, asking that it be quashed as it is unreasonable, unlawful, malicious, made in bad faith, made by ignoring relevant considerations and taking into account irrelevant considerations, ultra vires, contrary to the rules of natural justice and made without any legal foundation.
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,” Justice Morris-Ramlall noted in her judgment.
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. The evidence remained substantially the same at the close of the case for the defence.”
“Although the Magistrate was not the final arbiter of the facts, she was required to test or assess the sufficiency of the evidence and that testing was required to include summarily testing credibility and reliability. 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.”
While the Judge noted that Section 72 of the Criminal Law Offences Act does not afford the Magistrate any discretion as to compliance with the directions of the DPP, she held that the DPP did not lawfully exercise her discretion under this section for Bisram to be committed, and as such, the committal by the Magistrate cannot stand.
In the end, the Judge issued an order quashing the DPP’s directive for Bisram’s committal; an order that the arrest of Bisram on March 30, 2020, was unlawful; an order that the continued incarceration of Bisram since his arrest on March 30, 2020, is unlawful; another order compelling the DPP, Attorney General and Commissioner of Police to release Bisram from custody forthwith; and an order preventing the DPP from bringing a murder charge against Bisram in the High Court.
Bisram, on the other hand, is appealing a ruling by Justice Morris-Ramlall in which she rejected submissions proffered by his lawyer that Section 72 of the Criminal Law Offences Act is unconstitutional since the provision infringes on Articles 122 A and 144 (1) of the Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Since his extradition from the United States to Guyana, Bisram has been accusing the authorities of attempting to score cheap political points when there was no evidence linking him to the murder of Narinedatt. After he was freed on March 30, 2020, he had threatened to sue the State for unlawful detention and arrest.
Four 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.
