Chaos in court as judge denies bail petition
Stabroek News
February 22, 2003
The wife of treason accused Mark Benschop broke into tears and several of his supporters hurled loud, verbal abuse at Justice Jainarayan Singh Jnr and members of the prosecution team after the court denied him bail and dismissed the corresponding petition.
The chaos followed Justice Singh Jnr’s ruling that the application by Benschop’s defence attorneys for his pre-trial liberty was “premature and devoid of any special circumstances [in favour of same being granted] thus the petition is dismissed and bail refused”.
Almost immediately thereafter, a female supporter proceeded to stamp her feet in apparent frustration before launching into a verbal assault against the court and the local justice system. “This wrong, it unfair...” the angry woman shouted as she made her way in the corridor outside the courtroom. As if on cue, another woman began making derogatory remarks about the government and Benschop’s prosecutors.
By that time, Benschop’s other supporters had gathered outside the courtroom where they ranted and raved loudly for several minutes.
Initially, silence pervaded the crowded courtroom, where just about 50 persons - including around 20 lawyers - assembled for the judge’s decision but after the confusion erupted, the judge returned to his chambers and the court was informally adjourned.
Meanwhile, no police officers were in sight and a few moments afterward, Chief Justice Carl Singh left his chambers and went to the police outpost where he informed the Inspector-in-charge that the woman/women responsible for causing the disturbance should be arrested forthwith and placed before the court.
At that point, a police patrol vehicle carrying armed ranks arrived at the court and some of them accompanied by other police officers attached to the court approached the angry group of protestors who were standing a short distance from the High Court on South Road.
The ranks were greeted with verbal abuse by the group but despite the intimidation, managed to arrest one woman, who Stabroek News has since learnt is currently on bail. It was quite sometime before some semblance of order could be restored in the court’s conduct of its affairs.
Prior to the disruption, Justice Singh Jnr noted in his judgement, that no witnesses had been called by either party during the bail petition hearing, rather both the prosecution and defence had relied solely on the contentions contained in their respective affidavits.
In reference to the prosecution’s argument that Benschop’s petition was in itself `erroneous’ because it was sworn to by the petitioner’s wife instead of the petitioner himself, the judge said that while it is difficult for the petitioner to do same due to the restrictive conditions imposed, “it is more advisable” in such serious criminal matters for the petitioner in order to ensure that the application is devoid of hearsay to make the application himself.
Quoting several sources in support of his conclusions, the judge disagreed with the prosecution’s contention that section 81 (e) of the Criminal Law Offences Act, Chapter 10:01 should be interpreted alongside Section 87 of the said Act as a whole.
According to Justice Singh Jnr, the two sections read together can be applicable to the High Court only where the petitioner has already been committed to stand trial.
The judge pointed out that the preliminary inquiry into the charge against Benschop began on July 28 and that Benschop was officially charged on July 15, far earlier than the offenders in Guyana’s first treason case [involving Sukhram and others] where their PI never got started until two years after their arrest.
Further, some 11 persons were charged with capital offences before Benschop and for one reason or another, none of their PIs has begun.
The court acknowledged that there had been some delays in the PI but the judge stated that he did not believe them to be deliberate. He noted that the magistrate at the PI had found that a prima facie case had been made out against Benschop.
“I therefore must conclude that the state’s case is sufficiently strong to merit a defence,” the judge declared. The court also held that being charged with an offence which carries the death penalty provides “powerful incentive” for absconding.
And paragraph 18 of the accused’s petition, which states that there are urgent personal matters requiring Benschop’s attention following the recent unfortunate death of his six-year-old son in New York, the judge said there is a clear implication of possible flight.
Additionally, the judge reasoned, Benschop is a well-known public figure whose tirades against persons of whom he disapproves are highly popular, and such behaviour directed against witnesses for the state should he be released is likely to intimidate them into not giving evidence.
“[Additionally], ...Mr. Benschop has displayed amazing propensity for being in the wrong place at the wrong time,” the judge added, notwithstanding that his co-accused Phillip Bynoe had opted to live as a wanted man on the run.
Finally, it was noted that such critical details as the petitioner’s proper address and his occupation or whether or not he was or has been employed were omitted from the application, hence his ruling.
Benschop will attend a magistrate’s court on Wednesday when a decision is expected to be made regarding whether he will be committed to stand trial on the charge of treason. He was charged jointly with Bynoe who has not been arrested since.
