Lawyers for Yasseen, Thomas file appeal - 32 grounds listed
Lawyers for convicted murderers, Noel Thomas and Abdool Saleem Yasseen, on Wednesday, filed an appeal against the October 18, ruling of Justice Winston Moore, arguing that he had, among other things, erred in law when he held the delay in the execution of the death sentence to be the fault of the two men. The charge is one of 32 grounds of appeal on which the legal team is seeking to have Justice Moore's ruling against the murderers' application for a continuation of their stay of execution, reversed and set aside. The appeal was filed by the legal team of Stephen Fraser, Nigel Hughes, Teni Housty, Roysdale Forde, Anil Mohabir Nandlall, Nichola Pierre, Reginald Armour and Douglas Mendez. At the same time, the attorneys also filed a motion seeking a conservatory order and a stay of execution restraining both the Attorney General and the Director of Prisons as well as their agents from carrying out the death sentence imposed on Thomas and Yasseen. The motion is also seeking a stay of execution restraining the two men or their agents from carrying out the death sentence pending the hearing of the same motion. The stay of execution motion will come up on Monday before the Full Court. If it is granted the appeal will then be heard. On October 18, Justice Moore had denied an application by the two men to extend a stay of execution that he had granted on September 12. The judge had failed to find merit in any of the arguments. He had, however, granted Fraser and his team leave to file an appeal and had facilitated their filing by granting a five-day stay of execution. This stay of execution will expire on Monday. In giving the grounds for their appeal, the lawyers are contending that Justice Moore erred in law when he held that the delay in the execution of the death sentence was not cruel and inhumane treatment. They are also charging that Justice Moore misdirected himself or alternatively, exceeded his jurisdiction when he purported to finally determine legal issues at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings. The judge is also alleged to have misdirected himself or exceeded his jurisdiction when he made these findings of fact despite what the lawyers say was the existence of conflicting and/or incomplete statements of fact on the affidavits before the court. The court is also being asked to find that Justice Moore failed to consider or, alternatively, misdirected himself on the legal principles applicable in determining whether the action brought by Thomas and Yasseen was frivolous and vexatious. The appeal is also directed against Justice Moore's ruling that the appellants' submission on the unconstitutionality of the death sentence was bound to fail. Further, it is being argued that Justice Moore failed to consider the appellants' argument that the mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional for the reason that it offended the constitutional principles of separation of powers. Fraser and his legal team are also appealing against Justice Moore's ruling that none of the defects in the Advisory Council on the Prerogative of Mercy alleged by them, would have nullified the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy by President Bharrat Jagdeo. They also contend that Justice Moore misunderstood, misrepresented and misquoted the submissions in relation to the right to be heard before this Advisory Council. Also that he further erred when he ruled that the principles of natural justice did not apply to the constitution of the council or its deliberations. They are also asking the court to find that Justice Moore erred in law when he held that certain statements attributed to Attorney General, Charles Ramson, were incapable of constituting bias. In related arguments, they are also charging that Justice Moore had failed to consider their arguments that the AG's appearance in Constitutional Motion # 81-M/98 as counsel for the state had constituted bias. Other arguments revolve around a July 30, order made by Justice Carl Singh, ordering that the Advisory Council meet to consider a recommendation made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). Fraser and his team are asking the court to find that Justice Moore's ruling that a constitutional motion such as that brought before him had not been the proper procedure to challenge Singh's order was not the proper procedure. Flowing from this, the court is being asked to find that the judge failed to appreciate the nature and extent of his judicial responsibility on the hearing of an interlocutory summons for the grant or continuation of a conservatory order in a death penalty case. The judge is also said to have misdirected himself on the meaning of the term "qualified medical practitioner" as provided for in the Constitution. In addition to these and other grounds of appeal, the applicants are also asking the court to reverse Moore's ruling on such further and other grounds as may become apparent when the written decision of the learned trial judge is made available.
|