| – explains interventionDirector of Public Prosecutions, Shalimar Ali-Hack, has refuted allegations that she tried to influence the way Magistrate Yohhanseh Cave was conducting the preliminary inquiry into the murder of former Agriculture Minister Sash Sawh and three others.The DPP, in a letter responding to the allegations, informed that she did not interfere, but admitted that she did intervene in the matter, since her office is vested with constitutional powers to intervene in any criminal matter, whether public or private.According to the DPP, her office is responsible for all criminal matters.“When the Director of Public Prosecutions intervenes in a criminal matter, the Director of Public Prosecutions is carrying out the constitutional function which the Director of Public Prosecutions is appointed to do. The Director of Public Prosecutions is therefore acting lawfully,” she said in her letter to this newspaper.Magistrate Yohhanseh Cave had expressed his concern in open court, stating that the Director of Public Prosecution had attempted to direct him on the subject of his adjournment of the matter.The issue stemmed from Cave adjourning the PI while the late Minister’s brother, Omprakash Sawh, was being cross-examined by defence counsel James Bond.The late Minister’s brother and his wife had returned to Guyana to facilitate the continuation of the Preliminary Inquiry.However, they had indicated that they would not be in the country for any extended period, and therefore the court should seek to have their testimonies and cross-examination within a specific time-frame.The Magistrate had adjourned the matter to a date last week and the witness, Omprakash Sawh, had indicated that he would be unable to make the appointment since he was required to be back in the United Kingdom where he resided at the time.The Magistrate had urged him to make other travel arrangements since the work of the court was not dependent on his position.According to the Magistrate, he then received a telephone call from the Director of Public Prosecution requesting that he reconsider the date for the continuation of the PI so as to facilitate the witness.At the time of the adjournment, Omprakash Sawh, who happens to be one of the prosecution star witnesses, was being cross-examined by James Bond, counsel for accused David Leander.Magistrate Cave became upset and indicated that he will be taking up the matter with the Chancellor of the Judiciary,Cheap Jerseys From China, since the DPP should not try to influence the way he carried out his work.But explaining her side of the issue, the DPP said that she was first contacted by Magistrate Cave in January 2009 at the Chambers by phone.She said that the Magistrate informed her that the case is not getting anywhere, and that he understands that the police are making arrangements for the relatives of the deceased to come to Guyana to testify.According to the DPP, the Magistrate went on to say that their evidence is formal, and it is a waste of money to bring them to Guyana to testify.But, despite the views of the Magistrate,Andre Branch Dolphins Jersey, arrangements were made for the witnesses to come to Guyana to testify.The DPP said that one of the witnesses is Omprakash Sawh, who was present at the scene and saw two of the bandits whom he described in his statement to the police on April 27, 2006, six days after the murders.“The witness himself was a victim, having also being shot at by the bandits whom he described. The witness is not formal and is a main witness for the prosecution,” the DPP pointed out.The witness was granted one week’s leave from his job in England to come to Guyana to testify.The Court was so informed and the witness commenced testifying on Monday February 9,NBA Authentic Jerseys, last.But, according to Ali-Hack,Brad Richards Red Wings Jersey, the Magistrate then adjourned the matter to Wednesday, February 11, 2009, despite the Police Prosecutor requesting that the matter be continued one day earlier and the Magistrate being told that the witness was only here for the week to testify.The reason why the matter did not continue on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 is that Counsel for the accused could not be present.On the Wednesday the matter was adjourned to the following Tuesday, February 17, 2009 despite the Police Prosecutor again requesting that the matter be adjourned to Thursday, February 12, 2009, so that the witness could continue testifying. And again the adjournment was granted at the request of Counsel for the accused.“At this point I was contacted by the Police Prosecutor. Having been informed of what was happening by the Police Prosecutor on his cell phone, the Police Prosecutor then took his cell phone to the Magistrate for me to speak to the Magistrate. I then requested of the Magistrate if he could have accommodated the witness and heard the matter on Thursday 12th February, 2009, but the Magistrate refused, stating that he had already set a date with the Counsel for the accused,” the DPP explained.She said that at that point she reminded the Magistrate of the law.According to the Criminal Law Procedure Act it is required for the accused to be present for the Preliminary Inquiry. There is no mandatory requirement for counsel to be present. However, according to the DPP, the Magistrate insisted that he could not change the date, and he does not grant adjournments on the availability of witnesses.“I accepted the decision of the magistrate and took no further action, but the Magistrate on Thursday 19th February, 2009 made mention in open court of the DPP’s application and his decision,” Ali-Hack stated.She explained that in 1996 she had prosecuted a murder matter in the High Court before the then Chief Justice Mr. Kennard, and one of the witnesses for the prosecution, who was the son of the deceased, came to Guyana from the USA to testify.“When this witness arrived in Guyana I had another witness in the box testifying. Because this witness was in Guyana only for a few days, I applied to the Honourable Chief Justice to allow this witness to testify,Cheap Jerseys Free, and the Honourable Chief Justice granted the request, and the witness from the USA testified and left the country immediately thereafter. When the witness from the USA completed his evidence the local witness continued testifying,” the DPP pointed out.She explained that this is called interposing a witness and is done to expedite the hearing.“Such is justice! Such professional and judicial conduct is exercised by a competent legal mind determined to expedite a matter and ensure justice is done!” the DPP said.Omprakash Sawh has since returned to the United Kingdom, and is expected to return at a later date to complete his evidence,Kyle Korver Hawks Jersey, which is an integral part of the case for the prosecution.However, this newspaper understands that, should he not return in time, the prosecution will have to close its case and, since he was not finished being cross-examined by the defence counsel, his evidence so far will become null and void. |
