Appeal Court sets date to hear DPP challenge to ruling against Marcus Bisram committal
The Guyana Court of Appeal will on December 18th commence hearing the appeal filed by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack to challenge a High Court ruling quashing her order that Marcus Bisram be tried for the murder of Faiyaz Narinedatt.
At a case management conference (CMC) yesterday, the court said it will also hear the cross appeal filed by Bisram, who is appealing an aspect of the very ruling through which he was granted his release from prison.
Both sides were given leave to file and serve submissions on each other ahead of the December 18th hearing.
The appeal is being heard by acting Chancellor Yonette CummingsEdwards and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Dawn Gregory.
Bisram, who was extradited to Guyana from the United States a year ago, was charged with the murder of Narinedatt and remanded to prison.
Following a preliminary inquiry, however, he was discharged before being rearrested mere hours after on the direction of the DPP.
The former murder accused subsequently filed a High Court action challenging the DPP’s directive. Justice Simone Morris- Ramlall would later rule in his favour, quashing the committal order.
Dissatisfied, however, with the judge’s ruling that Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act is not unconstitutional and the court’s refusal to award him monetary damages for his unlawful/illegal imprisonment, Bisram filed an appeal.
He argues that Justice Morris- Ramlall erred in finding that section 72 was not unconstitutional by basing her ruling on cases decided in Guyana before the enactment of Article 122 A (1) of the Constitution when those cases no longer represent the law.
He contends, too, that the judge erred in law in refusing to order monetary/ vindicatory damages to him for the period of time he was unlawfully in prison because of the actions of the DPP and the State.
As a result, he wants the Court of Appeal to declare/ order that Section 72 is unconstitutional in view of Article 122 A (1) or alternatively a declaration that Section 72 has been repealed by Act No. 6 of 2001 enacted as Article 122 A (1).
Finally, he wants the appellate court to order that he be awarded compensatory and vindicatory damages.
Section 72 (2) (i) and ( ii) ( a) and ( b) of the Criminal Law Procedure Act empowers the DPP to order a Magistrate to reopen a preliminary inquiry ( PI) and commit an accused for trial.
Article 122 A provides, “all Courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control.”
Citing case law authority on this constitutional point raised by Bisram, Justice Morris- Ramlall rejected his submission that section 72 is unconstitutional or contravenes the
doctrine of separation of powers.
Justice MorrisRamlall’s ruling declared unlawful the directive given by the DPP that Bisram be committed to stand trial for the murder of Faiyaz Narinedatt, while ordering his immediate release from custody.
Meanwhile, Ali- Hack, in her appeal against Justice Morris- Ramlall’s judgment granting Bisram his freedom, maintains that her order directing that he be committed to stand trial was lawfully made.
Ali-Hack argues, among other things, that the judge erred in law in striking out parts of the state’s affidavit without giving it an opportunity to be heard.
It is the DPP’s contention that her directions, given under Section 72 of the Act, were lawful, proper and reasonable. In fact, she argues that Bisram’s arrest, too, was lawful and proper.
Bisram is being represented by Senior Counsel Murseline Bacchus and attorney Arudranauth Gossai.