Good
Hope trio freed on arms charges
Magistrate
upholds no-case submissions
The trio charged with unlawful possession of arms
following their interception by the army at Good Hope on the
East Coast of Demerara yesterday left the court
free men after no-case submissions by their
lawyers were upheld.
The
laptop computer was programmed to track the location of
cellular phone users and a list of names and cellular
telephone numbers of wanted men as well as other persons were
retrieved by intelligence personnel
Principal Magistrate Jerrick Stephney upheld no-case
submissions made by the attorneys for Shaheed
Khan, Haroon Yahya
and policeman Sean Belfield,
who were charged with possessing an array of arms.
Khan, Yahya and Belfield were detained on December 4th last
year by an army patrol at the Good Hope Housing Scheme, where
they were alleged to have been found with a large stockpile of
arms and munitions.
M-16 Rife
According to the particulars of the charges against the men,
they were allegedly found in possession of two M-16
rifles with 278 matching live rounds of 5.56
ammunition, and two 9mm pistols with 201 matching live rounds.
Belfield, who is a constable attached to the Anti-Crime Task
Force unit of the Guyana Police Force, was also separately
charged with two summary offences for being in unlawful
possession of a .40 Glock pistol and 10 matching rounds of
ammunition.
Appearing for Khan was attorney
Glen Hanoman, for Belfield, Vic
Puran and for Yahya, Nigel
Hughes.
Upon the completion of the State’s case, the defence team
made no-case submissions to the magistrate, contending that
there was no evidence to establish a prima facie case.
After considering the submissions of both the prosecution and
the defence, Magistrate Stephney yesterday afternoon held that
the evidence led by the state did not present him with the
justification to call upon the men to lead a defence.
“...I therefore uphold the no-case submissions of the
defence... I can only do what I feel is right according to the
law...”
Noting the factors that he had considered in the formulation
of his ruling, the magistrate first observed that there was
no evidence which proved that the men had had control of the
vehicle where the weapons were allegedly uncovered. It was the
State’s case that the men had had constructive control of
the items in the vehicle, however, Stephney considered that no
one had even said anything of the defendants’ proximity to
the vehicle.
Bullet-proof
vehicle
“I would have thought that would be the first thing they
would have established, where the men were standing, in order
for the prosecution to show that they had control. It did not
come up in the arguments and as Mr Puran observed, that should
have been the end of the case...”
He also pointed out that though marked weapons had been
referred to the court, the law requires that marking must be
done in the presence of the accused, which was not the case in
this particular circumstance.
Lastly, he said given the fact that Belfield was a member of
the Police Force at the time of the interception, arguments
were never led to establish if he was off-duty at the time,
adding “this was not pursued by the prosecution... I
therefore cannot find reason to ask any of these men for a
defence.”
As the magistrate delivered his ruling the three men stood
sedately in the prisoner’s dock.
Hanoman, in his no-case submissions to the court, had
contended that the lack of cogent evidence was sufficient to illustrate
that the prosecution failed to make out a case.
Pointing out that it was established that the items were found
in GHH 7539, Hanoman said that there was no real evidence
before the court relating to the ownership of the vehicle, nor
any direct evidence suggesting that the defendants were ever
occupants of it. Even in the event that the court did find
evidence to support a claim that any of the accused was in the
vehicle, he argued that it was still to be proven whether any
of the men had custody or control of the items together with
knowledge of their existence.
Meanwhile, he also asserted that it was of fundamental
importance that Belfield is and was at all material times a
serving member of the Guyana Police Force. Belfield, he said,
by virtue of his being a policeman, is allowed to be in
possession of firearms and ammunition, without need for a
licence, once requisite authority is granted by senior
officers.
Following their detention on December 4th the three men were
released by a High Court judge five days later on $0.5M bail
each after police failed to charge them. They were
subsequently charged on January 15 of this year and were again
released on $0.5M bail each.
