Defence contests admissibility of document not tendered
Stabroek News
November 2, 2002
The admissibility of the contents of a document, which had not been tendered in evidence while the prosecution sought to establish their case, was on Thursday contested when the Preliminary Inquiry into the charges of treason against Phillip Bynoe and Mark Benschop continued.
While associate prosecutor Anil Nandalall continued to lead the final submissions for the prosecution before presiding magistrate Chandra Sohan, the defence challenged his ability to found submissions upon the contents of the document which had not been tendered into evidence or marked as an exhibit.
The prosecution however maintained that the document was receivable as evidence in court, observing that the magistrate was required to take notice of the document as provided for under Section 24 of the Evidence Act Chapter 5:03.
The objections of the defence were however founded upon their contention that to allow the contents of the document would constitute a misrepresentation of the law.
They contended that it was not proper procedure for any document to be tendered by the prosecution after they had closed their case, and maintained that it was necessary that the document be produced in evidence. In support of their argument they cited Section 25 of the Act which says "no evidence of any fact of which the court will take judicial notice need be given by the party alleging its existence, but the judge, on being called upon to take judicial notice thereof, may, if he is unacquainted with the fact, refer to any person or to any document or book of reference for his satisfaction in relation thereto, or may refuse to take judicial notice thereof unless and until the party calling on him to take the notice produces the document or book of reference."
And noting that the magistrate was unacquainted with the issue, they submitted the need for the document to be tendered.
Considering submissions from both sides the magistrate resolved to address the issue at a subsequent stage in the hearing.
Attorney for the defence Mortimor Coddett attacked the 'Benschop Treason PI' report in Thursday's edition of the Stabroek News which he said gave the distinct impression that it was a one-sided affair, merely focusing on the submissions of Nandalall. He noted that it was especially important that justice not only be done but appear to be done in the eyes of the public.
The hearing will continue next Tuesday when the prosecution will complete their submissions.