Dear Editor,
I write concerning the article “two M-70 gang members secure bail” published in the Wednesday December 5, 2007 edition of the Kaieteur News and the effects it had on the public, so much so the Minister of Home Affairs had to voice his disappointment at the granting of bail to the two accused by the learned Magistrate (Kaieteur News, Thursday, December 6, 2007 pages 1 and 18).
I was present in court on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 throughout the entire proceedings of the bail application made by Mr. Gaskin because of my interest in the legal and practical significance of the issues of bail that were being argued. I am therefore in a position to comment factually on what took place during the proceedings.
I am appalled at the use of the words “in a gesture of kindness” in describing the decision of the learned Magistrate in granting bail since over two hours of legal discussions and arguments by the defence counsel, the prosecutor and the Magistrate took place before the magistrate made his ruling. I recall vividly that just before he made his ruling the Magistrate enquired from the prosecutor whether Courtman and Thompson had similar matters in any other court and was told no.
It is significant to note that the decision of the Mauritian case, Devendranath Hurnam v. The State, Privy Council Appeal No. 53 of 2004 and the decision of the Guyana High Court in the Case Compton English v. The Attorney General of Guyana, No. 1304 of 1994 was thoroughly discussed in the bail hearing.
The Magistrate highlighted the fact of the identical wording of the Mauritius Constitution provisions and Article 139 (4) of our Constitution that deals with bail, which was the subject of discussion in the Hurnam case (made available to the Magistrate by Mr. Gaskin, counsel for the accused Courtman). The Magistrate repeatedly suggested that the critical issue at the trial would be identification and adopting a course which the Hurnam case clearly shows to be a legitimate course, the learned Magistrate on at least two occasions requested information as to the nature of the prosecution’s evidence on the question of identification. I recall the prosecutor handing the Magistrate some statements, which he perused.
The learned Magistrate ruled that fairness required him to exercise his discretion to grant bail to the two accused, who live on the Essequibo Coast, considering that since they live here no real suspicion could be attached to their presence here. He made it plain that he also took into consideration the fact that Courtman surrendered himself to the police, who told his father that the police wanted to question him and that Thompson was arrested at his home, days after the robbery. In continuing to refuse bail to the other co-accused, the magistrate told them that unlike Courtman and Thompson, they do not live on the Essequibo Coast and so would have much difficulty in explaining away their presence here.
The two accused granted bail were not arrested at the road-block nor were they in possession of any M-70 automatic rifle when they were arrested as was erroneously reported in the article.
In my humble opinion, there were sufficient deliberations on the matter for the Magistrate to exercise his discretion in granting bail. The granting of bail was not done arbitrarily nor out of kindness as the article seems to suggest.
It is my belief the word “fairness” must have been misconceived as “kindness” by the reporter, since the Magistrate never once indicated that he was granting bail as a gesture of kindness.
Yours faithfully,
Haimraj B. Rajkumar
Attorney-at-Law
