Appeal Court throws out Bisram’s request for DPP to withdraw murder case

Murder accused: Marcus Bisram

Guyanese Murder accused, Marcus Bisram on Tuesday had his appeal to have the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) withdraw his murder case thrown out by the Court of Appeal.

Murder accused: Marcus Bisram

The decision was read by acting Appellate judge Dr Arif Bulkan who opined that the applicant filing repeated litigation amounted to an abuse of the court’s process.

In addition to the dismissal, Bisram’s mother- Sharmila Inderjali- who had filed the Appeal case on his behalf, was ordered to pay court costs of GYD$250,000.

Siand Dhurjon appeared for the applicant while Solicitor General Kym Kyte and Stacy Goodings appeared for the State.

Meanwhile, Bisram’s legal team in the US is continuing to fight the extradition order which was signed in October last by Judge Peggy Kuo.

New Yorker, Marcus Bisram, was charged in absentia in 2016 for the murder of 27-year-old, Number 70 Village Corentyne Carpenter, Fiyazz Narinedatt who was killed after he allegedly rejected Bisram’s sexual advances.

Murdered: Fiyazz Narinedatt

The five other men charged for the November 1, 2016, killing of Narinedatt were Radesh Motie, 39; Diadatt Datt, 18; Harri Paul Parsram, 49; Orlando Dickie and Niran Yacoob, 37.

Two of the accused had allegedly confessed to investigators that they were ordered by the overseas-based Guyanese businessman to dump the carpenter’s body on the Number 70 Public Road to make his death seem the result of a hit and run accident.

Additionally, the businessman’s mother and sister were also charged and remanded to prison after they allegedly offered bribes to Police ranks to “duck the case”.

Inderjali was also charged for witness tampering.

Since the commencement of the preliminary inquiry in Berbice, several persons have been accused of witness tampering and Nariendatt’s family stated outside of court that they are constantly living in fear that they could be shot and killed at any moment due to the influence Bisram has with money and power.

On October 31 2017, High Court Judge Gino Persaud ruled against the application to have the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) withdraw the case against Bisram.

On September 25, Bisram’s attorney, Sanjeev Datadin filed an application on behalf of Bisram’s mother Sharmilla Inderjali to quash the murder charge against Bisram on grounds that one of main witnesses for the Prosecution recanted their statement.

The judge however, observed that the attorney’s notice of discontinuation was an abuse of process.

As such, Justice Persaud struck out the entire case highlighting that there was “material non-disclosure” on Datadin’s behalf, since he did not include in his affidavit that he made an application on December 2016 to stop the DPP from advising the police in the Bisram murder probe.

Justice Persaud stated that an applicant is required to present all facts, even if they are against the said applicant, adding that the court must be approached  “with clean hands” when seeking prerogative relief.

In his judgment, he further noted that there are clear legal provisions to discharge orders nisi when there is material non-disclosure, without going into the further merits of the case.

Justice Persaud struck out three orders nisi, one of which sought to prevent the three respondents – the DPP, Chief Magistrate and Commissioner of Police from pursuing the murder probe against Bisram.

As the orders nisi were discharged, Datadin was also ordered to pay the State by way of the three respondents, $250,000 in court costs.



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.