Lawyer says plea deal between DPP and murder accused is unlawful

Jan 31, 2012 News

Defence attorney, Basil Williams, has filed a constitutional motion on behalf of murder accused Burt Lancaster, called ‘Moses’, seeking redress for what he believes is the contravention of his client’s fundamental rights and freedom.
This stems from a move by the prosecution to use Lancaster’s co-accused, Dawan Kawal, as their main witness after agreeing to a plea bargain arrangement with him.
Both Lancaster and Dawan, along with two other persons, Robert and Rolston Bharrat were accused of the 2006 murder of Deonarine Sukhdeo.
The two Bharrats were granted bail allegedly on the premise that they were accessory after the fact, but all four accused were subsequently committed to stand trial in the High Court by Magistrate Priya Beharry.
Around September, 2009, the Director of Public Prosecution indicted Kawal and Lancaster for Deonarine sukhdeo’s murder.
But according to defence attorney Williams, around May 21, 2010, the DPP and the Attorney for Dawan Kawal, without any notice given to his client, Lancaster, entered into a Plea Agreement whereby Kawal agreed to plead guilty and become a witness for the state against Lancaster, in return for the state agreeing to reduce his offence from murder to manslaughter.
The plea deal was filed in the high court registry around May 27, 2010.
Williams is contending that on that day although Kawal and his client were jointly indicted, Kawal alone appeared before Justice William Ramlal who accepted the terms of the said Plea Agreement and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.
A copy of Kawal’s statement was subsequently served on Lancaster’s attorney around January 13, 2012 by the DPP, which they proposed to use at his trial before Madame Dawn Gregory.
According to Williams, on January 25, last, the indictment, still in the names of the said Dawal Kawal and the said Burt Lancaster, was read out to the said Burt Lancaster alone, before Justice Dawn Gregory and Jury, for the offence of murder.
Williams is contending that in light of these premises, his client’s right to a fair hearing of the criminal indictment of murder brought jointly against him and the said Dawan Kawal before Madame Justice Dawn Gregory on January 25, 2012, “guaranteed under Article 144 (1) of the Constitution has been contravened, is being contravened and is likely to be contravened.”
Williams is therefore seeking a Declaration that the Plea Agreement made between the DPP and the Attorney-at-Law representing Dawan Kawal, providing for the said Dawan Kawal to plead guilty not to the offence of murder but to the lesser offence of manslaughter is unlawful, irregular, in breach of and contrary to Articles 144 (1) and 40 of the Constitution, in breach of and contrary to Section 7 of the Criminal Procedure (Plea Bargaining And Plea Agreement) Act 2008, is in excess of and without jurisdiction, unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary, null, void and of no legal effect.
He is also asking the High Court to find that the depositions upon which the aforesaid indictment for murder is predicated, disclose evidence of “murder only” against Kawal, and no evidence that could reduce murder to the lesser offence of manslaughter in his favour.
This is in addition to having the court declare that the DPP’s decision to make Kawal a witness for the prosecution in the trial against his client in exchange for his guilty plea, is not a “particular course of action”, within the meaning of the Sections 2 (c) (ii) and (e) of the Criminal Procedure (Plea Bargaining And Plea Agreement) Act 2008, is in excess of and without jurisdiction, unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, null and void, and of no legal effect.
Williams wants the High Court to grant a conservatory order staying and or suspending the trial of his client which is scheduled for tomorrow before Justice Dawn Gregory until the hearing and determination of the above mentioned motion.
The High Court is also being asked to set aside, cancel, recall, rescind or revoke the said Plea Agreement, as well as setting aside, cancelling, recalling, rescinding, or revoking the said Order accepting the Plea made by justice William Ramlal on May 37, 2010.

Latest News

Lawyer says plea deal between DPP and murder accused is unlawful

Related

Similar Articles

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

The Glenn Lall Show | June 16, 2025

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Guyana Cup returns August 11 with over $50M in prizes up for grabs

2025 CPL draft to stream live today

Caribbean Regional Table Tennis Championship 2025...

Yarrowkabra Sec’ thump BV to claim 2025...

Elton Dharry, Keevin Allicock, Dexter Marques...

Final group stage matches set for this Saturday...

Features/Columnists

Does the mandate of the Ethnic Relations Commission extend to offensive but non-racial comments?

Antigua and Barbuda hosts the OAS at a crucial juncture for the Americas

Baby Skello, another go

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Lawyer says plea deal between DPP and murder accused is unlawful

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

The Glenn Lall Show | June 16, 2025

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]