DPP seeks to commit Bisram on weak evidence; orders his re-arrest after matter discharged
Marcus Bisram and his lawyers after he was freed on Monday and hours before his re-arrest
The Director of Public Prosecution, Shalimar Ali-Hack has invoked powers vested in her by the constitution and ordered the re-arrest of murder accused Marcus Bisram who had the murder charge against him discharged against him on Monday buy Magistrate Renita Singh due to insufficient evidence.
On Monday afternoon the magistrate ruled in favor of the defense that the state did not provide enough evidence that could see Bisram being committed to stand trial in the High Court.
While other sections of the press reported that the DPP has also committed Bisram to stand trial, it should be noted that the DPP has no such powers under the constitution. What she has, however, is the power to direct the magistrate to reopen the case and commit the accused.
Earlier today, the freeing of Bisram appeared to have caught the DPP Chambers and the prosecution by surprise as they had fought tooth and nail to have Magistrate Renita Singh hear the Matter.
Magistrate Singh on Monday in delivering her judgment made reference to the submissions which were made by both the defense and the prosecution at the last hearing where they closed their case.
She said that she found insufficient evidence to commit Bisram to Stand Trial in the High Court, as she made reference to the fact the state’s star witness did admit in his cross-examination that he was told by the police what to say in his statement and that at the end of whatever was written in his statement was not read over to him by those who were taking his statement.
Now that Bisram has been re-arrested, it would be the burden of the state to prove his guilt with new evidence in accordance with such moves of re-arresting persons who are freed of an offense in the lower court.
It is unclear where that additional or new evidence will come from. The argument by the defense if such is provided could very well be seeking to find out why the state did not produce it in the first place during the Preliminary hearing to ensure Bisram’s commital.
After he was told that he was free to go, one of Bisram’s relatives ran out of the courtroom and informed the other relatives who were present outside of the courtroom that ‘Marcus get free’ after spending some time in the courtroom conversing with his lawyers, Bisram then emerged from the courthouse and spoke to the press.
He told the media that he was innocent of the charges from the beginning but that his charge stemmed from his religious standing and his political association as compared to that of those who pushed for him to be charged with the crime.
Marcus Bisram has stated that he would be suing the state for his incarceration and that his lawyers would be directed accordingly.
The Marcus Bisram matter has been the hallmark of a circus, calamity and a mockery of the judiciary especially when it comes to the manner in which the state has been providing its evidence.
