Two men and a woman accused by the Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU) of trafficking in four kilograms, 432 grams of cocaine were remanded to prison after appearing before acting Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry.
The allegation against Shawn Shaim, Shantel Mansfield and Wilfred Reece is that on February 23 at the Comfort Sleep Hotel, they had in their possession four kilograms, 432 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
The jointly charged trio denied the charge when it was read to them at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
Thirty-six-year-old Shaim is a Nigerian national while Mansfield, 29, is a vendor of Laing Avenue, West Ruimveldt. Reece, 52, is a father of two and a taxi driver of 31 South Ruimveldt.
In presenting the facts of the case, Oswald Massiah, special CANU prosecutor said that on the day of the incident the illegal substance was found in an open travelling bag on the floor of the hotel room in which the three defendants were found.
He said that after receiving certain information, CANU officers were dispatched to the hotel where the find was made after they were allowed in by Reece.
Massiah then made an application for the defendants to be denied their pre-trial liberty, stating that Mansfield and Reece had furnished the court with several conflicting addresses while there is a likelihood that Shaim may want to flee the jurisdiction if granted bail.
Attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes who represented Shaim made an application for his client to be granted an early date for commencement of the trial.
Meanwhile, attorney Hukumchand who entered an appearance for Reece said that his client who is a taxi driver had been present at the hotel to be paid after transporting Shaim to the location.
Hukumchand stressed that his client was only there to be paid for dropping Shaim off at the hotel when he found himself in the unfortunate circumstance of being arrested for an offence he knows nothing about as CANU officers entered at the same time.
He argued that his client was “simply standing at the door and stepped aside to give the CANU ranks access to the room. My client had no knowledge of any illegal substance being in the room.”
Hughes who said that he felt sorry for the woman then made an amicus curiae (friend of the court) appearance on her behalf, saying that she was at the hotel to visit Shaim with whom she shares a relationship and had no idea that the illegal substance was there.
Hughes argued that the prosecution had failed in its duty to show that the woman was “in possession” of the drugs.
He said that it would be unfair for persons to be charged with “possession” of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking simply because drugs are found in the same room with them.
The attorney, after acknowledging that special circumstances must be advanced relating to the offence and not the offender when considering the issue of bail, contended that the court should take into account that the woman was merely a visitor to the hotel.
The acting chief magistrate then told the lawyers that they were both speculating and subsequently advised that they wait for the trial at which point the details of the matter would be fully ventilated.
The three were ordered to return to court on February 28 for reports and fixtures for trial.
