By Ayanna Blair
After eight weeks and over ten hearings in the Preliminary Inquiry into the alleged rape of a 19-year-old girl, Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson yesterday ruled that a prima facie case had been made out against Colin Mack and he should be tried in the High Court.
He was also further remanded.
Mack, a 38-year-old entertainment promoter had first appeared at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on April 15 where he was not required to plead to the indictable charge of rape.
He allegedly offered the teen a drop home on April 12 after having several drinks at a night club. He is accused of diverting from the teen’s home to his at Festival City, North Ruimveldt, where he allegedly beat the teen and caused her to be held down by a woman while he raped her. Mack is also accused of ordering the woman to perform an indecent sexual act on the teen. Sometime after, he allowed the teen to go home.
He was represented in the court by attorneys-at-law Glenn Hanoman, James Bond and Rexford Jackson.
These lawyers, at almost every court hearing, had applied for bail for Mack but their application had been continuously objected to by Prosecutor Dennise Griffith whose main reason that Mack should be further remanded was that he might interfere with the teen and since the PI was already in progress he might not return to the court.
Nine witnesses testified in the case including the teen, her mother, a taxi driver, a Superintendent of Police and several Lance Corporals. The magistrate yesterday said the evidence had led her to find that a prima facie case had been established. She noted that the teen’s testimony on April 23 and 27, an oral statement that Mack made to the arresting officer and the results of the physical examination had been the strong points in the case.
“Your Worship I’m innocent of this charge,” stated Mack when he was asked by the magistrate if he wanted to say anything. She then told him that his statement would be included in the case as evidence for the trial. She then asked him if he wanted to call any witnesses but he responded “not at this stage.”
Magistrate Robertson then told Mack that he was committed to stand trial in the High Court in the October session this year.
Hanoman in a last bid for bail in the magistrate’s court stated that “given the current trends in the High Court my client’s case could be called about three years away from now.”
He noted that “the case has drained my client financially” and added that his client has lost several business deals and contracts since his incarceration. Hanoman requested that the magistrate grant his client bail in a reasonable amount and he even proposed a figure to the court.
“Fifty-thousand dollars has been a sum that has been set on many occasions in matters of this sort,” he stated.
Prosecutor Griffith stated that she still opposed bail. She reasoned that since the PI had ended Mack may not go to trial in the High Court if he was released. She said that experience had thought her that.
She added that although it may seem that hearings of trials in the High Court may extend over a period of years, this was due to the fact that many of the defendants who had been granted bail had not returned for their trial until they were apprehended again. She said that the court then faced the strain of conducting these trials along with others.
Griffith further stated that “the prosecution is of the view that he (Mack) may flee the jurisdiction.” She said that though his lawyer can argue that his passport and other travel documents can be seized by the police, many persons who had been released escaped through the Suriname border.
She also said that if Mack was released he may try to make contact with the female who had allegedly held the teen down. Griffith noted that from information gathered the woman was still in the country and the police have made several checks at her home but she was not there.
Hanoman then argued that the statements made by the prosecutor were not legal reasons to oppose the bail application. He noted that it was easy for her to say that persons may flee the jurisdiction but the court should be more vigilant and the prosecution should present real evidence.
“Rather than gossip, which has happened in this case they (the prosecution) should present legal evidence,” Hanoman argued.
He stated that it was strange that the prosecution still opposed the bail application and noted that this was the first time he had seen that done at this point of a case.
He then gave the court Mack’s North Ruimveldt address which he stated was his client’s abode all his life. He also noted that Mack was the father of a one-and-a-half-year-old child. He reiterated that his client should be granted bail since it may take three years for the first hearing in the case. He also commended the magistrate for the speedy way that the case had been dealt with by her court.
After Hanoman and Griffith were called to the magistrate’s bench to further review their arguments in the case, the magistrate ordered that Mack be remanded to prison.
Hanoman then informed the media that he would make another bail application on Monday at the High Court. Mack, wearing a grim expression, was then escorted out of the court by a policeman.
During the last several weeks, the court was presented with several twists and turns in the case starting with Antonio Szala of 32 Lyng Street, Charlestown who was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. He had allegedly tried to influence the teen to change her statements in the case so that the evidence could prematurely be swung into Mack’s favour. He was granted $75, 000 bail.
Then there was the issue of the underwear that the teen had allegedly been wearing at the time of the incident going missing. The prosecution said that matter would be dealt with at the trial.
