SOCU seeks to amend particulars of charge against couple accused of gold smuggling attempt
-prosecutor cites Westford dismissal
Georgetown Magistrate Leron Daly is expected to rule next month on an application by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) to change the particulars of a charge against a husband and wife who are accused of attempting to smuggle just over four pounds of raw gold, worth an estimated $14.6 million, out of the country.
Shazam and Bibi Khan are currently charged with possession of 1907.2 grammes (equivalent to 4.2 pounds) of raw gold, valued at $14.6 million, on September 20th, 2017, at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA), while not being producers.
The Khans, of Lot 3 Peter’s Hall, East Bank Demerara, have denied the charge, which SOCU prosecutor Patrice Henry is seeking to amend.
Attorney Mark Waldron, who represents Shazam, has already objected to Henry’s application, while arguing that the change would create a new offence and changes the complexion of the case that his client has to answer.
With the change, the new charge would read that Shazam conspired with Bibi to export raw gold, although they are not producers, when she was found in possession of the gold without an exporting licence.
Bibi is being represented by attorney Glenn Hanoman.
However, according to written submissions submitted to the court and the defence by Henry last Thursday, an amendment to the particulars of the offence cannot create a new offence. He noted that a new offence is stated in the statement of offence and in the current case the offence remains “Exporting Gold Without Licence”, contrary to the defence’s conception that it is possession of raw gold.
Henry also argues that even if a new offence was created by the amendment, the court could still grant it, once there is no injustice in doing so.
He conceded that the current particulars of the offence is not consistent with the evidence led and added that the statement filed and served is misleading in relation to Shazam. “There is no prejudice and/or embarrassment to the No. 2 defendant in this application, from the current particulars to the amended intended application,” he has argued, while adding that if the defence has any objection to the word “conspired,” the phrase aided and abetted or acted in concert could be substituted.
Henry also highlighted that the submission by the defence that Shazam was not at the airport at the time of the seizure would be consistent with the intended amendment, without which the case against him may be dismissed for a failure to capture the elements of the
offence.
In this regard, he noted the recent dismissal of the case against Jennifer Westford and Margaret Cummings, where he said the prosecution failed to harmonise the evidence in the witness statements and the elements and particulars of the offence.
Henry, in totality, argued in his written submissions that the offence will remain the same with the amendment and that there would be no prejudice to Shazam. “The application is uncomplicated, procedurally permissible and routinely granted. There is absolutely no injustice, prejudice and/or the creation of any new offence…,” he argued.
The matter was adjourned until October 22nd, when a ruling is expected to be made on whether the amendment of the particulars will be allowed.