Benschop's lawyers petition High Court for bail
Stabroek News
January 31, 2003
Attorneys for treason accused Mark Benschop are asking the High Court to grant him bail given what they say are the excessive delays in the preliminary inquiry which started in August.
The six attorneys led by Basil Williams have filed a bail petition in the High Court under section 87 of the Criminal Law Procedure Act, Chapter 10:01. In a copy of the said petition, sworn to by Benschop's wife, Maria, his lawyers contend that while section 81 of the said Act states that a person charged with the offences of treason, treason felony or murder shall not be admitted to bail by a magistrate, section 87 provides that "the Court or a judge may at any time, on the petition of an accused person order him, whether he has been committed for trial or not, to be admitted to bail, and the recognisance of bail may, if the order so directs be taken before any magistrate or justice of peace..."
Further, the petition states, section 89 of the aforementioned Act contends that the amount of bail to be taken in any case shall be in the discretion of the Court or the judge, by whom the order for the taking of the bail is made, but no person shall be required to give excessive bail. Additionally, that the magistrate or Court, or the judge may accept a deposit of money from or on account of any person in lieu of a surety or Sureties, and on any breach of the condition of his recognisance that the deposit shall be forfeited and shall be dealt with in the same manner as sums of money recovered in respect of forfeited recognisances.
In support of the contentions, the petition cites a number of quotes from the 36th Edition of Archbold Criminal Pleadings Evidence and Practice, page 71 paragraph 202: "Bail or treason or felony is discretionary in the High Court or Courts having jurisdiction to try the offence, RV PLATT, Leach 157....refusal or delay by any judge or magistrate to bail any person bailable is at common law an offence against the liberty of the subject..."
According to the arguments contained in the petition, under Article 144 (1) of the Guyana's constitution Chapter 1980, a person charged for a criminal offence, unless the charge is withdrawn, ought to be afforded a fair hearing within reasonable time by an independent and impartial court. Further, that any person charged similarly should be given adequate time and facilities to prepare for his defence.
The petition notes that since the depositions have not yet been typed, in the event that the magistrate does commit Benschop to stand trial, the case would not be heard in the High Court before the middle of 2004.
The case has been put off several times recently as the magistrate first said he had to leave the jurisdiction urgently and later fell sick.
