Proceedings regarding the treason charge against Mark Benschop will continue on Monday before Magistrate Chandra Sohan as the latter has undertaken to carry on with the case, based on information sworn to by Deputy Commissioner of Police Leon Trim.
Attorney General Doodnauth Singh conveyed Sohan’s undertaking when a Full Court of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Yonette Cummings, B.S. Roy and William Ramlall resumed yesterday.
The defence was expected to produce an affidavit in answer to an order nisi granted by the Full Court last Friday, on an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Dennis Hanomansingh.
However, when the court convened, lead counsel for Benschop’s defence, Mortimer Coddette said that when leave was sought, the defence was not in possession of the DPP’s application.
Further, the defence saw no need to file an affidavit in response, particularly since the AG had indicated the magistrate’s willingness to proceed.
Additionally, Coddette contended the order nisi should not have been granted in the first place, since such an order could only be granted if there is a refusal and there was no evidence on the face of the record to suggest that. Therefore the existing application is “ill-advised as there was no jurisdiction for allowing the order nisi.”
The AG then suggested that the magistrate’s order would have to be revoked and the preliminary inquiry (PI) commence with the existing information against Benschop and Phillip Bynoe, who is jointly charged with the former.
Senior Counsel Bernard DeSantos, who along with Special Prosecutor for the DPP, Sanjeev Datadin, filed the application on the DPP’s behalf, then stated that the magistrate could not “simply” revoke his ruling.
Coddette immediately challenged DeSantos to produce the ruling of which he spoke, emphasising the defence did not possess any record of any ruling or a refusal by Sohan to carry on the trial.
DeSantos maintained the magistrate had made an oral ruling, which was referred to in the application that the defence had chosen to ignore. He further stated that a ruling did not necessarily have to be in writing by the relevant functionary for it to be regarded.
At this stage, Justice Ramlall enquired of DeSantos whether the oral ruling was within the magistrate’s jurisdiction, to which DeSantos responded, “...in a sense, it was not within his jurisdiction.”
The nisi order had instructed the magistrate to show cause why an order should not be issued directing him to proceed in accordance with his statutory powers, which compel him to commence the PI into the joint charge.