Premature application by state in Bisram matter thrown out
ACCUSED: Marcus Bisram
By Leroy Smith
Magistrate Renita Singh on Thursday disallowed a request by the Director of Public Prosecution Chambers through its State prosecutor Stacy Goodings to have a site visit to the scene where carpenter Faiyaz Narinedatt was killed back in 2016.
Magistrate Singh noted that the magistrate court is only concern with the sufficiency of the evidence and not to determine the facts of the case and therefore declined a visit to the site.
As the matter continued today in the Whim Magistrate’s Court the magistrate made the ruling after promising last week that she would be doing so at today’s hearing.
Magistrate Singh noted that the evidence provided by the state witness is clear and ought to be easily understood by a jury. She said such application is up to the discretion of the trial judge to exercise and therefore disclosed that there are many reasons why her court would reject the application for a site visit, one of which is that it is a premature application as it is one for the jury to appreciate to see if a judge would need it in the interest of justice.
“They are no uncertainty as to the distance and location this witness testify for this court, the main thrust is that the evidence is that he heard everything heard certain things and that he recanted that he heard certain things and that he was told to say same, this court visiting the scene cannot assist the jurors visiting the scene is for their benefit if and when the time comes” Magistrate Singh noted after throwing the application through the door.
The ruling comes as a blow to the prosecution and further serves to weaken the prosecution’s case as several unreasonable applications and requests by the prosecution have been put to the court over the last few weeks.
The Defense representing Marcus Bisram had agreed to the visit if it was what the prosecution really wanted but cautioned the court that given the way the matter was being heard, which is by paper Committal, they indicated that the visit was not necessarily needed especially given that photographs and videos were tendered.
They argued that the site visit was only something that is considered if for any reason photos and videos submitted as well as the statements leave unanswered questions. Notwithstanding that, however, this process is generally adopted and executed by the upper court.
The court was told by the defense was another delay tactic by the prosecution and was part of a wider move to trample on the right of the accused and not have the matter proceeded.
Defense attorney Glenn Hanoman who was the only attorney representing the accused in court today accepted the decision and asked whether or not the state was ready to close its case. However, state prosecutor Stacy Goodings was absent and sent a representative who was unable to make a submission in her absence. The case is expected to be closed upon her return on the next court date.
Hanoman also inquiry whether or not the prosecutor was able to locate another key witness but was informed in the negative. The matter will be called again on March 12, 2020, at the Whim Magistrates Court.
