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.
