Arguments begin on Benschop bail petition
Stabroek News
February 6, 2003
Lead defence counsel in the Mark Benschop treason case, Basil Williams, yesterday contended that his client “has been locked up because of his views...this man is a political prisoner.”
Williams was making opening arguments in relation to the bail petition filed last week on Benschop’s behalf in the High Court before Justice Jainarayan Singh Jnr.
Williams described the case as a serious blotch on the jurisprudence and contended that the charge was one of the most arbitrary ever to be laid against a citizen in this country.
He contended that his client was being prosecuted by a `political activist’ but the judge quickly noted that Benschop was also being defended by a political activist. Williams shot back that he was a political preacher not an activist.
Referring to the prosecution’s affidavit in answer to the petition, filed by Prosecuting attorneys Mohabir Nandalall and Sanjeev Datadin and sworn to by Deputy Police Commissioner Leon Trim, Williams first noted that its late submission was not only in breach of the court’s deadline but a deliberate attempt by the prosecution to further delay the proceedings. The defence contended that since the petition related to the pre-trial liberty of the petitioner who has not been committed to stand trial and further, since Section 87 of the Criminal Law Procedure Act in no way limits the judge in the exercise of his discretion, bail could be granted for the offence of treason.
According to Williams, regarding the likelihood of Benschop `taking flight’ once granted bail, the onus was on the prosecution to prove that this was likely. Williams argued that Benschop had been charged several times before including for the offence of “sedition” but had never absconded.
The lawyer said there was no danger of Benschop “tampering with or contaminating the witnesses” were he to be freed since the said witnesses were either presidential guards or policemen. The lawyer appealed to the court to consider that Benschop has a young wife and three-year-old son who needed him, saying that it was unfair for the case to be delayed while Magistrate Chandra Sohan took leave to visit his family and Benschop’s family was being robbed of this pleasure as he languished in jail.
Meanwhile, the prosecution’s affidavit in paragraph 9 (c) denies “that the prosecution protracted the Preliminary Inquiry by presenting one witness per day and...that all and any delays thereof were caused by spurious/irrelevant submissions/objections of defence counsel and by unnecessary and incompetent cross-examination by the defence.”
Williams deemed paragraph 13 of the affidavit that there was “no provision in the Laws of Guyana under which bail can be granted for the offence of treason” to be ridiculous.
Paragraph 18 of the affidavit argues that the “magistrate’s absence was neither deliberate nor malicious but was due to illness, [thus] the delay was not unreasonable nor abusive to the process of the court.”
The prosecution also contended in its affidavit that “the application is misconceived and bad in law and ought to be dismissed forthwith. [And in paragraph 25]...that the last adjournment was due to a combination of spurious and irrelevant submissions by the defence, the request of lead counsel to have the matter adjourned because he had a matter in the High Court and because of the unruly and contemptuous behaviour of the prisoner.”
Earlier, the judge overruled an objection by Datadin that Williams should be disallowed from making opening arguments before the defence filed their affidavit in reply to the prosecution’s affidavit.
The court also granted leave for the defence to amend a typographical error in the bail petition which quotes Section 318 (a) of the Criminal Law Offences Act, Chapter 9:01 instead of Chapter 8:01. Further, the defence has also been given leave to file their affidavit in response to the prosecution’s affidavit.
The matter continues today.
