Skip to main content

Marcus Bisram tells CCJ that Appeal Court “erred in law” at arriving at judgment

Guyana-born U.S.-based businessman Marcus Bisram has moved to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), arguing that the Court of Appeal “erred in law” when it arrived at its May 31, 2021 judgment, committing him to stand trial for the 2016 murder of Berbice carpenter Faiyaz Narinedatt.

In a Notice of Appeal, Bisram, through his Attorney-at-Law Arudranauth Gossai, argued that the Appeal Court erred in law when having found that the procedure set out in section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act Cap 10.01 was not followed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Gossai further argued that the Appeal Court blundered when it concluded there was sufficient evidence against Bisram and that the credibility of a single witness was still a matter for the jury, where the evidence of that witness was the only evidence against the Appellant and that the witness had recanted his testimony and admitted that his evidence was not true.

Among other things, the attorney contended that the Court of Appeal misjudged when it held that the DPP, in directing a Magistrate to commit an accused person under section 72(2) of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act Cap 10.01 was not an act in breach of the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine and specifically Article 122 A of the Constitution and that further, it was not an act constituting an improper interference with the independence of the judiciary.

“The Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognise that as a court in judicial review proceedings, it was duty-bound to assess and determine whether the learned Magistrate’s decision and equally the decision of the Learned High Court Judge was respectively reasonable and rational when Her Worship and the Learned Trial Judge ruled that the evidence against the Appellant was insufficient to commit him to stand trial,” Gossai said in his Notice of Appeal.

Despite the above, Gossai is seeking an order reversing or setting aside the order and judgment of the Appeal Court, which was made on May 31, 2021.

Alternatively, Gossai is seeking an order or declaration that section 72 of Chapter 10:01 has been repealed by Act no. 6 of 2001, which enacted Article 122 A (1) of the Constitution of Guyana. Besides, the attorney is asking for an order that there be costs awarded to Bisram.

On May 31, 2021, Chancellor (ag) of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards delivered a unanimous decision committing Marcus to stand trial in the High Court.

Bisram was freed on March 30, 2020, after Magistrate Renita Singh at the Whim Magistrate’s Court found that the State did not have sufficient evidence against him.

However, just hours later, Bisram was re-arrested as the DPP ordered the magistrate to re-open the case on the grounds that there is enough evidence for him to stand a High Court trial.
As a result, Bisram’s lawyers moved to the High Court to challenge the DPP’s instruction. He was subsequently freed by Justice Morris-Ramlall.

It was alleged that between 31 October 2016 and 1 November 2016, Bisram coerced, procured, and commanded five persons to murder Narinedatt. The five were charged with the carpenter’s murder and remain on remand.

https://www.guyanastandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/MARCUS-BISRAM.jpg

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory, Rishi Persaud and Chancellor Cummings-Edwards.

The Editor doesn't seem to understand the use of "a/an" versus "the".

"The"is used to refer to specific or particular nouns; "a/an" is used to modify non-specific or non-particular nouns. We call "the" the definite article and "a/an" the indefinite article. "the" = definite article. "a/an" = indefinite article. For example, if I say, "Let's read the book," I mean a specific book.

How to Use Articles (a/an/the) // Purdue Writing Lab

Unanimous begins with u; but it is pronounced as Younanimous.

Hence a is used rather than an. ... a unanimous decision.

Quoted from the article ..

On May 31, 2021, Chancellor (ag) of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards delivered a unanimous decision committing Marcus to stand trial in the High Court.

Unanimous begins with u; but it is pronounced as Younanimous.

Hence a is used rather than an. ... a unanimous decision.

Quoted from the article ..

On May 31, 2021, Chancellor (ag) of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards delivered a unanimous decision committing Marcus to stand trial in the High Court.

Noted. But we are talking about a specific decision which is unanimous. Should it not be the unanimous decision?

A, the indefinite article tells us something is non-specific.

The, the definite article tells us something is specific.

@Mitwah posted:

Noted. But we are talking about a specific decision which is unanimous.

Should it not be the unanimous decision?

No ... not the ... it is a.

There are many other words beginning with u pronounced as You such as union, etc., etc., etc..

Bisram files Notice of Appeal to CCJ

Jun 22, 2021 News, Source - https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...ce-of-appeal-to-ccj/

Kaieteur News – In his Notice of Appeal (NoA) to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), accused murderer, Marcus Bisram, is arguing that the Appeal Court erred in its decision to send him back to the Magistrate’s court to be committed to stand a full trial.

https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/images/2021/06/Bisram.jpg

Accused: Marcus Bisram

Bisram’s lawyers are asking the CCJ to set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

The request was made three weeks after the Guyana Appellate Court ruled that the Guyanese-American who is known for his philanthropic efforts will have to undergo a trial for the 2016 murder of Berbice carpenter, Faiyaz Narinedatt.

The CCJ has since suspended the Appeal Court’s ruling until it hears and determines the case.

In the interim, the Regional Court has ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, not to take steps to arrest Bisram. The CCJ, nonetheless, ordered Bisram to lodge his passport with the Registrar of the High Court and report to the Divisional Police Commander in Berbice every Monday until the case concludes.

According to the document seen by this newspaper, the NOA was filed on behalf of Bisram by his legal team consisting of attorneys Dharshan Ramdhanie, QC, Arudranauth Gossai, Sanjeev Datadin and Dexter Todd.
Among other things, Bisram’s lawyers argued that the Court of Appeal erred in law when it found that “the procedure set out in Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act Cap. 10.01 was not followed by the DPP but still held that discretion she exercised was valid and lawful.”

The lawyers contended that the Court of Appeal erred when it concluded that there was sufficient evidence against Bisram based on the credibility of “a single witness” stating that it was still a matter for the jury, when the evidence of that witness was the only evidence against the accused and that witness even recanted his testimony and admitted that his evidence was not true.

The lawyers noted too that the Appeal Court erred in failing to recognise that as a court in judicial review proceedings, it was duty bound to assess and determine whether the Magistrate’s decision, and equally the decision of the High Court Judge, were respectively reasonable and rational when the two judicial officers ruled that the evidence against Bisram was insufficient to commit him to stand trial.

In their estimation, the lawyers noted that, “the Court of Appeal committed an equal error when it failed to recognise that as a court in judicial review proceedings, it was duty bound to assess and determine whether the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision, was reasonable and rational.”

Particularly, the NOA filed by the lawyers specifies, “the Court of Appeal erred when it held that in directing a Magistrate to commit an accused person under Section 72(2) of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act Cap. 10.01 was not an act in breach of the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine and specifically Article 122 A of the Constitution.

Further, the lawyers claimed that the Appeal Court erred when it failed to find that the DPP’s action was an act constituting an improper interference with the independence of the judiciary.

In the circumstances, the lawyers are seeking orders to reverse and/or set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal made on May 31, 2021 and an order that Section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act Cap. 10:01 is unconstitutional in view of Article 122 A (1) of the constitution of the Republic of Guyana.

Marcus Bisram, is arguing that the Appeal Court erred in its decision to send him back to the Magistrate’s court to be committed to stand a full trial.

Eheh DG, dis bwoy Marcus kno mo dan dem judges, eh.

Last edited by Mitwah

Add Reply

Post

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×