In carnal knowledge case…
RAVI Mangar, son-in-law of carnal knowledge accused Chandra Narine Sharma,  was among five persons who appeared in court yesterday charged with obstructing the course of justice by tampering with police witnesses. Mangar, 29, of 33 Bel Air Springs, Georgetown; Mark Reid, 29, of 12 Wellington Street, security guard at Wireless Rush on Avenue of the Republic; Tyrone Ali, 34, of 714 Cummings  Lodge,  East Coast Demerara, journalist and administrator of CNS Channel Six; Doodnauth Sharma, called Daveanand, 43, of 1075 Grove New Housing Scheme, East Bank Demerara, a driver at CNS Channel Six; and Raywattie Ramsaywack, called Dolly, 42, of 63 Houston Housing Scheme, faced separate charges.

Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson read the indictable charges and the accused were represented by attorneys-at-law Mr. Nigel Hughes, Mr. Vic Puran, Mr. Mark Waldron and Mrs. Tanya Warren.
Particulars of the charge against Ali said, on April 18 last, he willfully attempted to obstruct the course of justice by making inquiries and recordings of the inquiries of a woman, in relation to the whereabouts of a minor and two other women who are witnesses to allegations committed by CNS.
Mangar and Reid face a joint charge which says, on April 17 last, he offered to give a minor and three other females the sum of $2M and one house and land to induce them not to give evidence against Mr. Sharma in relation to sexual offences committed on them.
Another charge against Mangar alone says, on April 17 last, he procured Mark Reid to obstruct the course of justice by offering to give the females the sum of $2M and a house and land so they would not give evidence against Sharma.
Doodnauth Sharma and Ramsaywack were jointly charged on an offence that says, on April 15 last, they willfully attempted to obstruct the course of justice by removing three females from their home in Robb Street and taking them to a house at 123 Golden Grove Housing Scheme, East Bank Demerara, so as to prevent Police officers from contacting them for the purpose of investigations in relation to sexual offences committed on them by Sharma.
Police Inspector Stephen Telford, prosecuting, made an unsuccessful application for the matters to be dealt with in camera as the virtual complainants are juveniles; but Hughes from the defense team, said there was no need for this as only sexual offences are called in camera.
He proclaimed that the lawyers have no difficulty with a matter being called in camera, but have grave trouble with matters being held in secret. “If he (the prosecutor) can refer to any section of any act that says it could be held in camera, then let it be so. I’m opposing any trial in secret. Justice must be public,” Hughes argued.
After Telford responded that the parties were before a proper court of law and that the fact remains that the virtual complainants are juveniles, Hughes requested to see the names of the victims on the case jackets.
After scrutinizing these, he informed the court that all of the virtual complainants are adults as opposed to Telford’s claim that they were juveniles.
The Magistrate granted the Prosecutor time to clarify whether or not the victims are juveniles, and after resuming the proceedings, Telford informed the court that all of the females are adults, except one.
The Magistrate ruled in favour of the Defense team by allowing the matters to be dealt with in open court but ordered media representatives not to mention the name of the juvenile in their reports.
In a bail application, Hughes said Ali has been a journalist for 17 years and was charged for simply carrying out his duties by asking questions regarding the case.
This “sublime and ridiculous charge” contradicts journalists’ rights to freedom of speech as well as their right to ask questions, Hughes said, adding that it is beginning to look as though someone has a personal agenda against Sharma.
He said the question that Ali asked pertaining to the whereabouts of the victims is one that the entire media has been asking since last week Thursday.
“Does that mean that all those reporters should be charged? Any investigative journalist will make inquires,” Hughes pointed out.
The lawyer opined that charging Ali was an attempt to intimidate reporters so that they will see the consequences of trying to dig up information.
“This is a brutal assault on freedom of speech,” Hughes maintained.
Telford said while Sharma was in police custody, Ali went to one of the witnesses in the matter to obtain information for his boss. This is a clear case of witness tampering, Telford said, adding that bail should be refused for Ali.
Hughes however responded that there is not a single law on the statute books that says a witness in a matter cannot be interviewed.
“I’m petrified that an inspector can get up and say that because we speak to a witness it’s an offence. This is a real perversity,” the lawyer said.
Magistrate Robertson transferred the matter to Court 10 and it will be called again on May 13.
On behalf of Mangar and Reid, Waldron said sections in the print and electronic media carried an interview with a relative of the virtual complainants who claimed that his clients were offering $5M as a bribe. She then said they offered $10M, Waldron said, pointing out that the charge now has $2M and a house and land.
Waldron further argued that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, told the court initially that the virtual complainants were in protective custody. “Since all were in custody, how could the defendants approach them? The presentation of these charges is based on malice,” he said.
Telford requested that bail be refused for Mangar and Reid on the grounds that they will continue to interfere with witnesses and may flee the jurisdiction once set free. Even when persons lodge their passports with the court, they still manage to flee, Telford said.    Bail was nevertheless granted to the accused in the sum of $100,000 each and the case will come up again on May 13.
In his bail application, Puran told the court that Ramsaywack is a receptionist at Freezing Point on North Road and is three months pregnant. He said she was granted $20,000 station bail.
Puran charged that these allegations stem from spite and ill-will and from the fact that the state has been defeated when Sharma was granted his pre-trial freedom. These charges were laid to continue to breathe life into a matter that has died a natural death, he said.
The accused were also granted $100,000 bail each and will return to Court Six on May 21.
At the end of the proceedings, Magistrate Robertson clarified with the lawyers that only one of the virtual complainants was in protective custody. She said this was information based on what was relayed by the DPP.