Sharon Seymore, the woman accused of forging a will left by her now deceased brother Semion Sam, was yesterday admitted to bail in the sum of $30,000 when she appeared before Magistrate Hazel Octive-Hamilton at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court.
The allegation is that on October 5, 2007, with intent to defraud, Sharon Seymore forged a last will and testament made by Semion Sam.
The woman pleaded not guilty to the charge of forgery of a testamentary instrument when it was read to her by the magistrate. When given a chance to respond, the woman whose attorney was absent at yesterday’s hearing made an application on her own behalf to be placed on reasonable bail.
Prosecutor Stephen Telford had no objection to the bail application made by the accused.
The vendor of 105 West Ruimveldt Estate Housing Scheme was later granted $30,000 bail. She was ordered to return to court on September 23.
When the woman made her first appearance before Octive-Hamilton on August 10, she was not required to plead to the offence which was indictable at the time. Yesterday, however, the prosecution applied the Administration of Justice Act (AJA) which allowed for Seymore to enter a plea.
Moreover, on the last occasion the magistrate ordered the police to revisit the matter which she said was “poorly conducted” since Seymore’s lawyer presented documents to the court showing that her client was granted probate by the High Court which recognized her as having the power to administer the very estate in question.
When the accused made her initial appearance before the magistrate, Octive-Hamilton noted that the investigation conducted by the police had exposed their deficiency. In admonishing the police to conduct more thorough investigations, the magistrate told them to “seek advice again,” and ordered that the case be returned to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for a further probe.
Meanwhile, Crime Chief Seelall Persaud on August 13 defended the position of the police saying that the case had been properly investigated and all the evidence was in the prosecution’s file. Persaud told Stabroek News that after the hearing of the case, the file had been returned to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
“There is no law preventing the police who would have evidence of the forgery, instituting the charge for such an offence that was allegedly committed,” Seelall said.
It is for the court hearing the evidence to decide thereon,” the DPP was quoted by Persaud as saying.
The Crime Chief stressed that the case had been thoroughly investigated and rejected the comments that were made by the magistrate.
