Taxi driver freed on narco-trafficking charge after prosecution fails to prove case

A charge for trafficking in narcotics against 40-year-old taxi driver Benny Cumberbatch has been dismissed owing to the prosecution’s failure to prove its case. In December 2018, Cumberbatch appeared before Senior Magistrate Faith Mc Gusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts charged with the offence.
Police had alleged that on December 13, 2018, at Little Diamond Public Road, East Bank Demerara (EBD), he had 12 pounds of cannabis sativa (marijuana) in his possession for the purpose of trafficking. Cumberbatch had initially pleaded not guilty to the allegation and a trial commenced thereafter.

The case for the prosecution was that on December 13, 2018, Police ranks acting on information stopped motor car HC 6869 which was being driven by Cumberbatch, in the vicinity of Little Diamond, EBD. Police said that a search was conducted on the person of the defendant but nothing illegal was found.
However, a quantity of leaves, seeds, and stems suspected to be narcotics was found in the back seat of the vehicle. As such, Police said that the narcotic was seized. The prosecution had contended that after the drug was found, Cumberbatch told Police ranks “Leh we work out something nah”.
In his defence, Cumberbatch testified that the motor car is owned by his sister, who would from time to time rent the vehicle to different persons. He testified that on the day in question, he collected the car from one Mr Duncan at the Soesdyke Junction, East Bank Demerara.
He testified that he did not check the trunk, neither the back seat of the vehicle. He further denied knowing that the illicit drug was stored in the car since it was concealed in an area that is not exposed to the ordinary view. To this end, Cumberbatch’s lawyer, Bernard Da Silva, presented a no-case submission.
Therein, the lawyer argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, taken at its highest, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any act by his client satisfied the elements of the charge. The lawyer submitted that there was no evidence such as voice or video recordings, contemporary notes, or a diary entry in support of the purported oral statement made by Cumberbatch.
Notably, the lawyer argued that his client vehemently denies making any such statement. “The words purportedly uttered by [Cumberbatch] bear no admission to knowledge and control of any narcotic and can only invite speculations as to the meaning intended. Maybe he was imploring the investigating ranks to expand their investigations to get the real culprits of this crime.”
According to the defence counsel, the lapses and disjointed evidence prove to be fatal to the prosecution’s case and only added to the lack of fairness, balance, credibility, and corroboration in the collective testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses which consisted mostly of Police ranks.
As such, the lawyer submitted that his client should benefit from the doubts created in the prosecution’s case and asked that the charge against his client be dismissed. Having examined the evidence in the matter, the Magistrate upheld the submission of no case to answer and dismissed the charge against him