.jpg)
MAGISTRATE Adela Nagamootoo, following a High Court edict that the prosecution closes within four months, in the trial surrounding the 2004 theft of a Guyana Defence Force (GDF) AK- 47 assault, dismissed the case. That was after the State failed to produce its witnesses, many of whom have left the employment of the Army.
The order or rule nisi of prohibition, granted by Justice Dianne Inshanally last September, was the result of a petition by attorney-at-law Mr. Murselene Bacchus on behalf of Raymond La Fleur.
La Fleur, currently on the run after being sentenced, in his absence, to five years imprisonment for robbery under arms, had moved to the High Court to prevent the magistrate from proceeding further with his trial on five counts of being in possession of ammunition without the relevant licences.
He is also charged with being in possession of a firearm without the necessary permit. However, those charges are pending.
In his affidavit supporting the originating motion, La Fleur, born on June 23, 1976, said he operates a grocery shop at his transported property at Lot 28 Vryheid Village, West Canje, Berbice.
On September 10, 2004, he was arrested by Police whilst crossing the Berbice River and taken to Central Police Station, where Nigel Henry was in custody.
La Fleur said the Police informed him that a rifle was stolen from the GDF, an allegation to which he denied having knowledge.
He said, when he was, initially, arrested, one Roy Lewis, of Princes Street, Georgetown, was in his company and together with Henry, they were taken to a house in Tucber Park, New Amsterdam, which was occupied by Clevon Thomas and, later, informed that arms and ammunition were there.
On August 6, 2004 La Fleur, Henry and Clevon Thomas were charged and placed before Magistrate Chandra Sohan, accused of receiving stolen property, to wit an AK-47 knowing it to have been property of the GDF.
The cases were before Magistrate Sohan for four years but the prosecution was unable to lead all the evidence and, between 2006 and 2010, they were mentioned on numerous occasions but the trial did not commence until March 2010 and then, in front of Magistrate Omeyana Hamilton for nearly a year. But, again, the prosecution was, still, not able to provide sufficient testimony.
La Fleur contended that the delay on the part of the prosecution in presenting its case for more than eight years, amounts to an abuse of the Court process.
The order or rule nisi of prohibition, granted by Justice Dianne Inshanally last September, was the result of a petition by attorney-at-law Mr. Murselene Bacchus on behalf of Raymond La Fleur.
La Fleur, currently on the run after being sentenced, in his absence, to five years imprisonment for robbery under arms, had moved to the High Court to prevent the magistrate from proceeding further with his trial on five counts of being in possession of ammunition without the relevant licences.
He is also charged with being in possession of a firearm without the necessary permit. However, those charges are pending.
In his affidavit supporting the originating motion, La Fleur, born on June 23, 1976, said he operates a grocery shop at his transported property at Lot 28 Vryheid Village, West Canje, Berbice.
On September 10, 2004, he was arrested by Police whilst crossing the Berbice River and taken to Central Police Station, where Nigel Henry was in custody.
La Fleur said the Police informed him that a rifle was stolen from the GDF, an allegation to which he denied having knowledge.
He said, when he was, initially, arrested, one Roy Lewis, of Princes Street, Georgetown, was in his company and together with Henry, they were taken to a house in Tucber Park, New Amsterdam, which was occupied by Clevon Thomas and, later, informed that arms and ammunition were there.
On August 6, 2004 La Fleur, Henry and Clevon Thomas were charged and placed before Magistrate Chandra Sohan, accused of receiving stolen property, to wit an AK-47 knowing it to have been property of the GDF.
The cases were before Magistrate Sohan for four years but the prosecution was unable to lead all the evidence and, between 2006 and 2010, they were mentioned on numerous occasions but the trial did not commence until March 2010 and then, in front of Magistrate Omeyana Hamilton for nearly a year. But, again, the prosecution was, still, not able to provide sufficient testimony.
La Fleur contended that the delay on the part of the prosecution in presenting its case for more than eight years, amounts to an abuse of the Court process.
