Magistrate to rule on admissibility of Fredrick Kissoon testimony in assault trial

Nov 02, 2017 News, https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...ny-in-assault-trial/

One year after newspaper columnist, Frederick Kissoon gave his testimony in the trial against three, accused of throwing faeces on him in 2010, it is being called inadmissible by Attorney-at-law Glenn Hanoman, who is representing one of the men in the trial.

Principal Magistrate, Judy Latchman is set to rule on the competence of Kissoon’s testimony come November 8.

Kwame McCoy, Jason Abdulla and Shawn Hinds are accused of assaulting Kissoon on May 24, 2010, at Georgetown. They are all out on $100,000 bail.

Yesterday, Prosecutor Shawn Gonsalves closed his case before Magistrate Latchman which has being ongoing for more than a year.

The men allegedly threw fecal matter into Kissoon’s face when he emerged from Nigel’s Supermarket, at Robb Street, Georgetown.

It was reported that an individual walked up to the columnist’s vehicle and threw the substance on him. After the attack, Kissoon reportedly drove behind the perpetrator who ran north along Light Street then went into North Road, before jumping into a waiting car.

Attorney, Latchmie Rahamat is representing McCoy; Attorneys, Euclin Gomes and Glenn Hanoman are representing Abdulla; Hinds is being represented by Attorney George Thomas.

Hanoman stated that the evidence given by Fredrick Kissoon on August 23 last, is deemed inadmissible citing that Kissoon was unable to answer simple questions when he gave his testimony.

Last year when Kissoon was called to give his testimony to the court, he recalled on the day in question, he had left Nigel’s Supermarket on Robb Street, Georgetown and entered his vehicle which was parked nearby. He said that he had wound down his vehicle’s window when a man walked up and threw a substance on him.

The witness recounted that after the substance was thrown on him, a man of African descent walked away, jogged across North Road, proceeded down Merriman Mall and entered a motorcar. He also went on to describe his attacker’s height and body structure.

When asked by Prosecutor Bostwick if there were other persons in the car, Kissoon replied in the affirmative.

However, when asked by the prosecutor to point out the person who had thrown the substance on him, Kissoon was unable to do so, indicating that the individual was not present in court.

Under further cross examination by Hanoman, Kissoon said that he discarded the shirt he was wearing at the time of the attack, because he had no reason for wanting to keep a nasty piece of material.

”For such an event in your life, you can’t remember what type of shirt you were wearing?” the Magistrate asked. Kissoon then sought to explain that it was an ordinary denim shirt.

In addition, Hanoman requested the Magistrate to warn Kissoon about his demeanour. At this stage, Kissoon asked the Magistrate to tell him what was wrong about his demeanour.

The Magistrate did not respond. Hanoman and Kissoon had an exchange of words after Kissoon refused to answer questions he said were not clear to him.

It was then that Hanoman asked the Magistrate to make a ruling on Kissoon’s competence to continue as a witness. The Magistrate did not do such.

During cross examination by Rahamat, Kissoon was asked how he was able to identify his attacker since he mentioned in his testimony that he was in a state of shock.

In response, he told the lawyer that although he was in a state of shock, it did not affect his visual capabilities.

During Kissoon’s testimony, Rahamat requested for the Magistrate to warn Kissoon. The Attorney did not specify what she wanted the witness to be warned about.

Kissoon repeatedly asked Magistrate Latchman what the lawyer was implying, but she declined to answer.

Topics