Attorneys Mark Waldron and Winston Murray entered preliminary objections to the charges laid against their clients, Brian Holder, Youlanda McDonald, as well as Colville Kellman, the three persons jointly charged with being accessories to wanted Mash Day prison escapee, Dale Moore.
This was at the beginning of the Preliminary Inquiry yesterday before Magistrate Melissa Robertson.
The particulars of the charge state that the accused were on Sunday, April 21 accessories after the fact to a felony committed against Section 339 (B) of the Criminal Law Offences Act (CLOA), Chapter 8:01, in that they knew that Dale Moore had escaped from the Guyana Prison, in which he was lawfully confined on a criminal charge and acted with intent to impede the apprehension of the said Dale Moore, contrary to Section 27 of the CLOA, Chapter 8:01.
Kellman is also charged along with the five Mash Day prison escapees, Shawn Brown, Troy Dick, Andrew Douglas, Mark Fraser and Moore for the Friday, May 3 robbery-under-arms of Patrick Seebaran. He was placed on $75,000 bail while an arrest warrant was issued for the escapees.
Another person, Patrick Sanmoogan was separately charged for being an accessory.
Holder and Kellman were at the time both taxi drivers with the Indian Chief taxi service.
According to the allegations, on Sunday, April 21 at 20:30 hrs, Brian Holder, driver of hire car HA 8314, picked up escapee Dale Moore, and the first defendant, Youlanda McDonald on D'Urban Street. He allegedly took them to the Esso gas station on Vlissengen Road. At this point, it is alleged that Dale Moore instructed Holder to call Car 18, which is owned and driven by Colville Kellman. Moore and McDonald then allegedly joined Kellman and drove off. The accused were subsequently arrested on Saturday May 4 and investigations were carried out.
Appearing for the number one accused, McDonald, Murray told the court that his client had been following a friend home in a taxi, not one being operated by Kellman or Holder, when the `black clothes' police intercepted a telephone conversation she had stopped to make, and pounced upon her and her friend. She was subsequently arrested and charged on the basis that she, not linked with any of the other persons, the attorney said, acted contrary to Section 27 and 339(B) of the CLOA.
"The charge is therefore bad in law, since my client never acted in concert. She was acting independently of any action taken by the other two accused in any act. On that basis alone, the charges should be struck out."
Waldron also told the court that the charges are bad in law and should be dismissed on those grounds. The three accused, he said, are charged jointly as being accessories after the fact, contrary to Section 27 of the CLOA, Chapter 8:01, while each of the alleged offences are completely autonomous and unrelated and as such the prosecution cannot in anyway establish a joint connection.
"Based on a literal meaning of Section 27, in tandem with Section 339 (B), the prosecution would be hard pressed to find evidence to support an accessory after the fact in relation to 339 (B). The sections are completely unrelated as it relates to the particulars of the alleged offence, which has brought these people before the court."
On the prosecution's request for an adjournment in the hearing to seek advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Murray asked the court whether that would be the peremptory date, noting that every time his client would appear before the court, her character would be besmirched. The inquiry will continue on June 25.