Any attempt at a re-arrest will lead to High Court action

ANY attempt by the police and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to re-arrest former South American beauty queen, Carol Ann Lynch will see her lawyers moving to the High Court to block such a move. 

This was told the Guyana Chronicle last evening by one of Lynch’s attorneys in response to an invitation to comment.
When the police moved to have Lynch re-arrested and the case reopened against her for the murder back in 2007 of her cambio dealer husband, Farouk Razack, after it had been initially thrown out, the lawyers moved to the High Court to have it blocked, but the prosecution told the court that they had new evidence to produce.
Yesterday, Attorney-at-Law Latchmi Rahmat told the Chronicle that despite the excitement on the part of the prosecution to have the case reopened, and their promise to offer new evidence, there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Lynch had killed her husband.
The new evidence the prosecution spoke about involved calling new witnesses, but these persons who were called were the same ones whose statements were in the case jacket in the first preliminary inquiry but they were not called to testify.
Ramat said the prosecution had “two bites at the cherry already, and a third bite is not likely.”
She said that as predicted when Lynch turned herself over to the police in January, the case was discharged because of the lack of evidence on the part of the prosecution. She said that her client was very confident that the case would have been thrown out, since she knew that she did not commit an act of murder. Lynch also knew that it was impossible for any evidence to stand up in court to prove otherwise, since that would have had to be strongly fabricated.
The attorney explained that it should be the job and burden of the prosecution to prove to the court, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the evidence produced does link the accused to the offence, and throughout the case, the prosecution in Lynch’s case failed miserably in that instance.
Rahmat explained that the defence team had waited many years for the prosecution to provide new evidence to implicate Lynch, and in the end there was nothing. And that is what the magistrate acted on.

(By Leroy Smith)