Lawyers for Yasseen, Thomas to call psychiatrists
Condemned murderers Noel Thomas and Abdool Yasseen should not be allowed to benefit from the argument that they have suffered from an undue delay in their case given that the delay was, in fact, caused by them to avoid execution, Attorney General (ag) Charles Ramson argued yesterday in closing arguments. In response, Stephen Fraser, lead counsel for the two condemned men, advised presiding Judge, Justice Winston Moore that his legal team would be leading arguments to support their contention that "cruel and inhuman punishment" had played a large part in this delay. To this end, Fraser, speaking on behalf of his associate, Nigel Hughes, said that the team would be calling psychiatrists to testify as to the psychological deterioration of the two men and will also be leading evidence to show physical deterioration. Before this however, the AG submitted that the two men who were convicted of the murder of Yasseen's brother, had seen it fit to make capital of the delay so as to prolong and elongate their stay on death row. As such, he asked Justice Moore to make short shrift of a writ of summons which has been filed by their legal team asking that a stay of execution ordered by the Judge be continued. Justice Moore is currently presiding in the hearing which is seeking to determine whether the ex parte stay of execution he granted on September 12 should be continued until the determination of issues raised in the supporting affidavit on which the stay was granted. Before closing, Ramson cited a ruling in a local Court of Appeal Case which, in relation to the question of undue delay, ruled that undefined boundaries exist within the concept of delay within which no court ought to set boundaries of its own except as guidelines. Ramson also asked that the Court take a practical interpretation of the case of Pratt V Morgan, which has been raised by Fraser. Fraser has previously submitted that the UK Privy Council had ruled in that case that the test for inordinate delay should be five years in those countries with access to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) and three years for those without. Quoting from that same case, Ramson contended that where the delay is due entirely to the fault of the accused, then he cannot benefit from it. He also pointed out that as of 1996, Thomas and Yasseen had spent nine years in jail compared to the fourteen spent by the principals in Pratt V Morgan,. The three years to date, he contended have been the result of the delay tactics of Thomas and Yasseen and not the state. Ramson also replied to a contention by Fraser that the Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy had been improperly constituted due to the absence of a Medical Council to register the medical practitioner whom it was mandated must sit on the Council. Ramson pointed out yesterday that while the law rules that a medical practitioner should be registered by the Council under the Medical Practitioners Act of 1991, it also mandates that practitioners registered under old ordinances still be deemed to be registered under the new Act until they were are duly registered under the new Act. The AG subsequently closed his presentation. Fraser, rising to begin his arguments, had pointed out to Justice Moore that two affidavits sworn to by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Roger Luncheon had been served on his legal team. This is opposed to the single affidavit that Ramson told the court that he knew about. According to Fraser, both affidavits referred to the execution warrant being signed by President Bharrat Jagdeo but differed in a small but crucial way, a change he said that could only have come at the hands of the AG According to Fraser, both affidavits had been served at different times on the same day but the one served earlier referred to this order being signed following the tendering of an opinion\report by the relevant Minister while the other only referred to an opinion. The lawyer explained that the difference was significant since the Constitution only provided for an opinion to be tendered and he observed that the AG and his team might have become aware of this and decided to serve a second "doctored" affidavit on his colleague. He asked Justice Moore to note that the Court's copy of the affidavit bore what appeared to be white-out and that, superimposed over this white-out was the word opinion. He observed that the entire document appeared to have been generated on a computer but that someone had apparently taken off the front page and altered Opinion\report to read opinion, using a manual typewriter. Hughes added weight to this charge by submitting that the clerk who served the second affidavit on him had said that the first had been served by mistake and should be disregarded. Ramson was loud in his denial of this charge. He reiterated that he only knew of one affidavit and producing a copy, which, like the Court's own used the word "opinion", charged that any change made had to have been done by Fraser's team. Fraser, for his part, asked that the clerk in question be brought to swear to the truth but Justice Moore would only concede to recording the clerk's name. Court is expected to resume tomorrow when Fraser will continue his arguments.
|