Right to life could be taken away by state - Ramson
Attorney General Charles Ramson, SC yesterday submitted that it would be an "ill conceived attempt" if lawyers for condemned murderers Noel Thomas and Abdool Saleem Yasseen were to appeal against Justice Winston Moore's ruling on the grounds that their clients' constitutional right to life had been violated. The Attorney General's position came yesterday in the first stage of arguments before a Full Court panel hearing the two men's appeal against Justice Moore's October 18 ruling which denied them a stay of execution. He pointed out to Chief Justice Desiree Bernard, Justices Deonarine Biscessar and B.S. Roy that, as had been found in the stay of execution hearing before Justice Moore, the right to life could be taken away by the state, was not exclusive of the rights given to others and could not be interpreted to mean an absolute right to life. Yasseen and Thomas's lawyers, led by Stephen Fraser and Nigel Hughes, have contended, in skeleton arguments laid out before the Full Court, that the death penalty is unconstitutional since it infringes the principle of separation of the powers and the right to life. They have also charged that the hearing by Justice Moore on the issues of fact and law based on affidavits had, in effect, usurped the functions of the trial judge and was an improper procedure. The lawyers had quoted the case of Wenlock V Maloney et al to support this contention but yesterday Ramson dismissed this case and another one as being limited to specific circumstances. Pointing out that the Judge had had nothing else but affidavits to consider, Ramson went on to cite authorities of his own to show that a Judge could, indeed, consider affidavits to make his decision. Continuing in what he said was an attempt to clear everything away and leave only the core issues, Ramson also dismissed the lawyers' submissions questioning Justice Moore's actions in stipulating that he would only listen to arguments that had not been heard before or that were not res judicata. Noting that the Judge had been too generous in giving this warning, Ramson again referred to the law to show that precedents had been set for this action. The AG also took the opportunity to question the use of a summons by Fraser and his team with which to approach the court. Ramson, as he has pointed out before, noted that a motion would have seen the case get priority but that the lawyers appeared bent on delay. He then scoffed at another of the lawyer's contentions that they had not moved as expeditiously as they might because of the respondents' failure to enter appearance. Ramson pointed out that it was no good to argue that inaction by the defendants\respondents had affected any appellant\plaintiff's case. During his presentation which stretched into the afternoon, the Attorney General also sketched out arguments to be advanced against issues raised by Fraser and his team, among them the court's jurisdiction in the case. The attorney general is expected to continue his arguments when the hearing resumes tomorrow. 
|