TWO thugs were shot dead in the Accounts Section of the Office of the President after threatening staff there. Thugs were searching for US dollars.                                                                            

I

Mark Benschop trial…

Some statements by Bynoe will be admitted into evidence – Judge

Defence attorney says witness lied to the jury

 

The High Court has partially reversed its earlier ruling, allowing Phillip Bynoe's declaration of intent to remove the Government of Guyana and or the President, to be admitted into evidence in the Mark Benschop treason trial.

That is the decision of trial Judge Winston Moore, who handed down his ruling yesterday at the start of the day's proceedings.

Before giving his ruling, Justice Moore, in the presence of the jury, told the prosecution and defence that the ruling is final and there will be no “hemming and hawing” about the decision.

The Judge thanked both sides for their industry in researching material for their arguments, adding that the extent of work they put in helped him arrive at his decision without having to research beyond what was presented.

In reading his ruling, the Judge said, “this court rules that evidence of any declaration by Phillip Bynoe of his intention to remove the Government of Guyana and or the President and any invitation to the public to join a march on the 3 rd of July 2002, will be admitted to evidence. All other evidence of what Bynoe said or is alleged to have said will be excluded.”

After Defence Lawyer Basil Williams sought some clarification on the consequences of the ruling on the evidence, Lead Prosecutor Sanjeev Datadin briefly re-addressed the jury on what previously debarred evidence was to be heard by them.

The jury was told that the prosecution would lead evidence about public meetings at which Bynoe disclosed plans for a march to put Jagdeo out of office and to remove the government from office.

Datadin said, “the march is an important part of the prosecution's case” and asked the jury to “listen to the evidence and make their own findings regarding what that march was about”.

At this stage, the prosecution called its first witness to testify yesterday, Police Corporal Gail Ann Vangronengen, who testified that on June 29, 2002, she was stationed at the Golden Grove Police Station and was detailed to cover a political meeting at the Golden Grove Market Square .

The policewoman, who at the time had 18 years of service, said the meeting was organised by the Peoples Solidarity Movement and the main speaker was Phillip Bynoe, who spoke of a march on the 3 rd of July, 2002. Vangronengen told the court that Bynoe said the march must go on because the purpose of the march was to put Jagdeo out of existence.

Under cross-examination, the defence drew to the attention of the court and the witness, an inconsistency in her statement before the High Court and earlier statements in the Magistrates' Court.

The deposition quoted the witness as saying Bynoe said, “the march on July 3, 2002 must go on because the struggle was to put Jagdeo out of existence”.

Vangronengen accepted that she had an opportunity to change the statement she signed as true and correct in the Magistrates' Court, but said she could not remember the reason she did not ask the Magistrate to make the correction.

This was a continuation of the previously set trend where prior state witnesses gave evidence in the High Court that was not the same as the evidence given at the Preliminary Inquiry.

Because of the Court's ruling, there was no need for the state's next intended witness, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Wilfred Sandy, to take the stand.

The state's next witness was Inspector of Police Deo Narine, who told the court of taking Benschop into custody on July 11, 2002, after he was released on $35,000 bail on a charge of riotous behaviour, which stemmed from the events at the Office of the President on July 3, 2002.

In the shortest cross-examination in the case to date, the defence submitted to the witness that the very circumstances on July 3, 2002, which led to the arrest and placement before the court of 21 persons on riotous behaviour charges, were the same circumstances out of which Benschop's indictment arose.

The witness agreed with the submission and was thereafter excused.

When Senior Superintendent of Police, Michael Harlequin was called to the stand, it was a return to the trend of witnesses giving contradictory evidence to the statements in their deposition.

Under cross-examination, Harlequin accepted that he did not tell the Magistrate what he was telling the High Court adding that the reason his evidence in the High Court is different is because “I now remember”.

During the afternoon session, the state called Presidential Guard, Rabindranauth Mohal, whose evidence was found to be inconsistent on a number of points.

Attorney-at-Law, Basil Williams, who cross-examined Mohal, summed-up that Mohal lied to the jury and the Judge when he said the protestors went into the Accounts Department of the Presidential Complex.

Williams' submission was supported by the witnesses' signed deposition in which he did not tell the Magistrate that the protestors went into the Accounts Department.

Asked why he was presenting varying evidence Mohal said, “I have no explaination”.

On a number of instances that it became apparent that his evidence was contradictory, Mohal's reason for the variances was “I have no explanation”.

The trial continues today.