Marcus Bisram all decked out for his court appearance today at Whim Magistrate’s Court
Legal arguments by the prosecution and the defense were the highlight of yet another day of the Marcus Bisram case at the Whim Magistrate Court. What should have been a ruling by Magistrate Renita Singh as to whether the matter should proceed by way of a Paper Committal or the lengthier version, a Preliminary Inquiry, turned out to be two hours of back and forth arguments on the same. pushing the Marcus Bisram matter further along the line of continuous delay.
Prosecutrix Stacy Goodings, representing the state, asserted that their position remains the same to have the matter play out in court by a PI. She relied on legal arguments quoting section 71A “which seeks to address a magistrates role when holding a PI at the stage of a committal”.
The state argued that they are tasked with the responsibility to prove their case and as such “are in a position with evidence” to do so. Goodings reiterated “in the interest of justice” it would be better served by way of a PI to allow their star witness to take the stand and testify orally before the court. She argued that in addition to their readiness to proceed that the “prosecution enjoys the discretion whether to call a witness…it is not an unfettered decision…We have disclosed to the court all that we have” and as such should be allowed an opportunity to present their case.
However, defense Attorney Sanjeev Datadin besides his legal rebuttals to Goodings legal reasonings, questioned why his client cannot be afforded a shorter trial. He argued that their issue is not “who you call or not” but rather “how” the case should proceed, taking into consideration the option of a speedy trial.
He expressed the belief that the prosecution may be “trying to curtail the defense from asking questions” while noting that what is taking place is only the “pre-cursor” to determine whether there would be a trial, and not a trial currently taking place.
In addition, defense Attorney Todd in his argument pointed out that a considerable amount of time has been wasted trying to determine how the matter should proceed. His argument is that what should be taking place is the legal argument on whether “you can reverse the order of Magistrate Moore, this case is not a done over matter. Evidence has to be taken. If the order of Moore is to be reversed then the court can only entertain whether it has the power to do so which Goodings has not addressed”. He stressed that “this is a waste of judicial time”.
To that, Magistrate Renita Singh at that stage pointed out that checks would have to be made to see whether Magistrate Moore had recorded his ruling on the case jacket.
Ruling to decide on how the matter will proceed was set for February 10, 2020 10:00 am sharp.