Dataram pleads guilty to ammo possession after charge against wife withdrawn
Convicted drug trafficker Barry Dataram was yesterday sentenced to three years in jail for the unlawful possession of ammunition, while his commonlaw wife, Anjanie Boodnarine, had the charge against her withdrawn.
Dataram and Boodnarine were jointly charged with being in possession of 180 rounds of .223-calibre ammunition in April 16, 2015, 2016, at a Diamond Housing Scheme house, without being the holders of a firearm licence.
After Customs AntiNarcotics Unit prosecutor Konyo Sandiford announced that based on information conveyed by the duo’s attorney, Glenn Hanoman, and consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the state would only proceed with the charge against Dataram, the joint charge was withdrawn and the charge was reread against Dataram alone. He then pleaded guilty. Prior to her ruling, Magistrate Latchman stated that she took into consideration all mitigating facts, including Dataram’s early guilty plea.
The convict was then sentenced to three years in jail and fined $60,000. The sentence is expected to run concurrently to the fiveyear drug trafficking sentence he would have received last year.
Meanwhile, Magistrate Latchman also ruled yesterday that the court had jurisdiction to preside over an application by the DPP for the forfeiture of the sum of $9 million belonging to Dataram and Troy Dataram.
Hanoman, who represents both Datarams, had previously contended that the Magistrate’s Court has no power to forfeit funds and that the matter should be before the High Court. He added that the case was before the High Court in a civil matter involving the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) over its continued possession of the seized currency.
Magistrate Latchman, in her ruling, stated that she considered submissions made by the DPP’s representative and Hanoman and determined that since the lower court dealt with the criminal matter in relation to the narcotics possession and not the High Court, it does have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
She added that she is aware of the matter filed by SOCU at the High Court and it serves as part of the foundation for the DPP’s application.
Hanoman then stated that he hopes to engage the High Court on whether or not the lower court has jurisdiction.
In response, the magistrate stated that he would be given 14 days to reply to the ruling. The matter, she stated, will proceed on February 7.