Benschop’s lawyers conclude defence
Stabroek News
February 18, 2003
Magistrate Chandra Sohan yesterday heard the defence’s closing arguments when the Preliminary Inquiry into the charges of treason against Mark Benschop and Phillip Bynoe resumed yesterday.
The defence closed their case at the beginning of yesterday’s hearing and submitted that the prosecution had not made out a sufficient case and a jury, properly directed, could not convict on the evidence led against Benschop.
According to the particulars of the charge, “Contrary to Section 318 (a) of the Criminal Law Offences Act (CLOA), Bynoe and Benschop between Saturday June 1st and Wednesday July 3 of [last] year, being citizens of Guyana and owing allegiance to the state of Guyana, formed an intention to overthrow the lawfully elected Government of Guyana by force, during the said period, in furtherance of the aforesaid intention (A) Conspired together with persons to forcibly and unlawfully enter into the compound and premises of the Office of the President (OP);
(B) Were present at and encouraging others by words and conduct, to unlawfully overtake and storm the OP compound and premises.”
Referring to Section 71 of the Criminal Law Procedure Act, Williams reminded the court that it is required to look at the evidence as a whole and to make a determination as to whether the prosecution has made out a sufficient case.
The Section states: “If, upon the whole of the evidence, the Magistrate is of the opinion that a sufficient case is made out to put the accused person upon his trial for any indictable offence he shall, subject to Section 9, commit him for trial to the next practical sitting of the court for the county in which inquiry is held.”
Williams noted that at the close of the Prosecution’s case Benschop gave an unsworn statement exculpating himself of any involvement in the actions of persons who had entered the OP.
“In fact his statement corresponded with the prosecution’s case...” Williams said while arguing that the prosecution failed to establish that Benschop had committed any criminal act at OP and that he conspired with or acted in concert with Phillip Bynoe.
He said they were never seen in close proximity to each other and no evidence was led to show that they had ever communicated with each other before or on the day when they are alleged to have committed the offence.
“If they want to show conspiracy they have to show a prior plan to do this unlawful act. He is charged for conspiring with other persons, .... these people who are charged for entering the OP compound, but no evidence has been led to show that these people had any dealings with Mr. Benschop.”
Meanwhile referring to a case cited by the prosecution to establish that it was not necessary to prove that conspiring parties had communicated, Williams said the authority does not support their contention.
An intention, Williams noted, which is never communicated, remains only an intention and does not amount to an indictable conspiracy.
In reference to the Magistrate’s ruling on the defence’s no-case submissions and his findings that allegiance had been established by the prosecution, Williams asked the magistrate to reconsider his position, reiterating that allegiance was not supported in the evidence. This was evidence, which he said the Magistrate must re-examine after the testimony of Charles Smith and Leon Trim, the only witnesses put forward by the defence.
At the end of Williams’ address, Special Prosecutor for the DPP Sanjeev Datadin asked the court’s leave for one day to submit their reply, which the Magistrate granted. The hearing will continue tomorrow.
