- Ram strikes out yet again
Written by
Thursday, 29 September 2011 04:40
McDougal Report provisionally ruled inadmissible
WHEN President Bharrat Jagdeo’s libel case against Freddie Kissoon and Kaieteur News continued before Justice Brassington Reynolds in the High Court yesterday afternoon, Counsel for the Plaintiff, Anil Nandlall, indicated to the court that he (Nandlall) had presented to the judge and also served on Khemraj Ramjattan, one of the defence lawyers, written submissions as to why the report by Gay Mc Dougal was inadmissible.
[‘STRIKE OUT’: Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram had to be constantly reminded by the judge, and his peers, of the need to stick to the issue at hand for relevance sake. (Adrian Narrine photo)]
‘STRIKE OUT’: Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram had to be constantly reminded by the judge, and his peers, of the need to stick to the issue at hand for relevance sake. (Adrian Narrine photo)
Nandlall then asked the court for its ruling on his submissions at which point Ramjattan indicated that he was unable to read it before 10:00 hrs yesterday, due to his political commitments and asked the court’s permission to make oral submissions.
He urged the court to rule that the report was admissible because the defence had cited it in its Statement of Defence.
In his rejoinder, Nandlall argued that the requirements for evidence to be admissible are that it must be relevant and that once it is relevant it must then satisfy the test of admissibility and that there are several rules of evidence which would render the document inadmissible.
The first principle is that the document constitutes inadmissible hearsay because it is an out of court statement which is being tendered in the court and the author of the statement is absent.
Secondly, the report itself says that it is based upon the views expressed by various people, making the report itself not only hearsay, but based upon hearsay and none of the requirements set out in the Evidence Act has been satisfied to make this type of hearsay admissible.
[In the High Court yesterday.]
In the High Court yesterday.
Thirdly, it is opinion evidence and such evidence is generally inadmissible unless the court deems the opinion maker an expert. In this case the author is not even present to have her deemed an expert.
Nandlall declared that the report does not even contain McDougall’s views but those that she spoke and conducted interviews with. “So we will end up with hearsay upon hearsay,” Nandlall charged.
The judge, in making a decision to deliver his ruling the next day (today), after having had a chance to digest the defence’s submissions, indicated that it was his immediate reaction that those submissions would not seriously mitigate his initial ruling which he was now making a provisional ruling, to the effect that the rudimentary rules for admissibility of documents would not allow the document as being inadmissible at this stage.
Justice Reynolds indicated that it would be “unfair” and “unsafe” to admit the 65-page document in view of the fact that the author of the report would not herself be present or subjected to cross-examination to test for accuracy.
Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram, who had earlier made an application to the court that even though he had indicated that his cross-examination had concluded, he wished to further cross-examine the chief witness Dr Roger Luncheon, and was given an opportunity to do so.
As happened earlier in the trial Ram, reading prepared questions, asked several questions to which Nandlall vehemently objected and many of which were found improper by the court and had to be reworded.
When a question was eventually allowed about the composition of the Guyana Rice Development Board, and the witness having answered that his recall did not extend beyond the current Board, Ram put suggestions to the witness that Cecil Kennard was Chairman in 1999, and after Nandlall objected that this was a false suggestion since Cecil Kennard was the Chancellor of the Judiciary, Ram amended it to Charles Kennard.
JUDGE ADMONISHES CHRISTOPHER RAM
He then suggested names of other persons who headed the organization over the years. Nandlall again objected on the ground that several of these persons were public figures performing other functions upon which the judge admonished Ram not to make unsubstantiated suggestions.
With regard to the appointment of Presidential Guards, Dr Luncheon stated in his answers to questions which were eventually allowed that the appointment of the officers is done by the Police Service Commission and that, to his knowledge, appointments by the Police Service Commission do not require inputs or approval by the President.
Many attempted questions by Ram on the phenomenon known as the ‘crime spree’ were disallowed by the court.
Ram then asked about NICIL and land allocation in the area referred to as ‘Pradoville 2’ and, having been told by Dr Luncheon that NICIL was involved in land allocation in Liliendaal and that the land in ‘Pradoville 2’ was allocated by Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) and not NICIL, Ram went on to suggest to the witness that the housing community known as ‘Pradoville 2’ is an exclusively Indo-Guyanese community chosen by the Cabinet and chaired by the President.
At this point the court invited Ram to withdraw his question if he could not prove the accuracy and Ram then changed the word ‘exclusively’ to ‘predominantly’.
Dr. Luncheon vehemently rejected Ram’s affirmation and insisted that it was the CH&PA which made the allocations, not the Cabinet, and also that many allottees were Afro Guyanese including Dr Luncheon himself; Dr Compton Bourne, former Head of the Caribbean Development Bank; the Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force, Commodore. Gary Best; Chairman of Region 10, Mortimer Mingo; and Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee.
Asked if he recalled any Indo-Guyanese, Dr Luncheon named the President, Ministers Robert Persaud and Priya Manickchand and confirmed that Dr Ghansham Singh also had an allocation but that Dr Ashni Singh was not an allottee.
At this point Ram, who had to be constantly reminded of the need to stick to the issue at hand for relevance sake, concluded his cross-examination and the matter was adjourned for today at 15.15 hrs for re-examination of Dr. Luncheon to commence.
Written by
Thursday, 29 September 2011 04:40
McDougal Report provisionally ruled inadmissible
WHEN President Bharrat Jagdeo’s libel case against Freddie Kissoon and Kaieteur News continued before Justice Brassington Reynolds in the High Court yesterday afternoon, Counsel for the Plaintiff, Anil Nandlall, indicated to the court that he (Nandlall) had presented to the judge and also served on Khemraj Ramjattan, one of the defence lawyers, written submissions as to why the report by Gay Mc Dougal was inadmissible.
[‘STRIKE OUT’: Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram had to be constantly reminded by the judge, and his peers, of the need to stick to the issue at hand for relevance sake. (Adrian Narrine photo)]
‘STRIKE OUT’: Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram had to be constantly reminded by the judge, and his peers, of the need to stick to the issue at hand for relevance sake. (Adrian Narrine photo)
Nandlall then asked the court for its ruling on his submissions at which point Ramjattan indicated that he was unable to read it before 10:00 hrs yesterday, due to his political commitments and asked the court’s permission to make oral submissions.
He urged the court to rule that the report was admissible because the defence had cited it in its Statement of Defence.
In his rejoinder, Nandlall argued that the requirements for evidence to be admissible are that it must be relevant and that once it is relevant it must then satisfy the test of admissibility and that there are several rules of evidence which would render the document inadmissible.
The first principle is that the document constitutes inadmissible hearsay because it is an out of court statement which is being tendered in the court and the author of the statement is absent.
Secondly, the report itself says that it is based upon the views expressed by various people, making the report itself not only hearsay, but based upon hearsay and none of the requirements set out in the Evidence Act has been satisfied to make this type of hearsay admissible.
[In the High Court yesterday.]
In the High Court yesterday.
Thirdly, it is opinion evidence and such evidence is generally inadmissible unless the court deems the opinion maker an expert. In this case the author is not even present to have her deemed an expert.
Nandlall declared that the report does not even contain McDougall’s views but those that she spoke and conducted interviews with. “So we will end up with hearsay upon hearsay,” Nandlall charged.
The judge, in making a decision to deliver his ruling the next day (today), after having had a chance to digest the defence’s submissions, indicated that it was his immediate reaction that those submissions would not seriously mitigate his initial ruling which he was now making a provisional ruling, to the effect that the rudimentary rules for admissibility of documents would not allow the document as being inadmissible at this stage.
Justice Reynolds indicated that it would be “unfair” and “unsafe” to admit the 65-page document in view of the fact that the author of the report would not herself be present or subjected to cross-examination to test for accuracy.
Attorney-at-Law Christopher Ram, who had earlier made an application to the court that even though he had indicated that his cross-examination had concluded, he wished to further cross-examine the chief witness Dr Roger Luncheon, and was given an opportunity to do so.
As happened earlier in the trial Ram, reading prepared questions, asked several questions to which Nandlall vehemently objected and many of which were found improper by the court and had to be reworded.
When a question was eventually allowed about the composition of the Guyana Rice Development Board, and the witness having answered that his recall did not extend beyond the current Board, Ram put suggestions to the witness that Cecil Kennard was Chairman in 1999, and after Nandlall objected that this was a false suggestion since Cecil Kennard was the Chancellor of the Judiciary, Ram amended it to Charles Kennard.
JUDGE ADMONISHES CHRISTOPHER RAM
He then suggested names of other persons who headed the organization over the years. Nandlall again objected on the ground that several of these persons were public figures performing other functions upon which the judge admonished Ram not to make unsubstantiated suggestions.
With regard to the appointment of Presidential Guards, Dr Luncheon stated in his answers to questions which were eventually allowed that the appointment of the officers is done by the Police Service Commission and that, to his knowledge, appointments by the Police Service Commission do not require inputs or approval by the President.
Many attempted questions by Ram on the phenomenon known as the ‘crime spree’ were disallowed by the court.
Ram then asked about NICIL and land allocation in the area referred to as ‘Pradoville 2’ and, having been told by Dr Luncheon that NICIL was involved in land allocation in Liliendaal and that the land in ‘Pradoville 2’ was allocated by Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) and not NICIL, Ram went on to suggest to the witness that the housing community known as ‘Pradoville 2’ is an exclusively Indo-Guyanese community chosen by the Cabinet and chaired by the President.
At this point the court invited Ram to withdraw his question if he could not prove the accuracy and Ram then changed the word ‘exclusively’ to ‘predominantly’.
Dr. Luncheon vehemently rejected Ram’s affirmation and insisted that it was the CH&PA which made the allocations, not the Cabinet, and also that many allottees were Afro Guyanese including Dr Luncheon himself; Dr Compton Bourne, former Head of the Caribbean Development Bank; the Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force, Commodore. Gary Best; Chairman of Region 10, Mortimer Mingo; and Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee.
Asked if he recalled any Indo-Guyanese, Dr Luncheon named the President, Ministers Robert Persaud and Priya Manickchand and confirmed that Dr Ghansham Singh also had an allocation but that Dr Ashni Singh was not an allottee.
At this point Ram, who had to be constantly reminded of the need to stick to the issue at hand for relevance sake, concluded his cross-examination and the matter was adjourned for today at 15.15 hrs for re-examination of Dr. Luncheon to commence.
