hief Magistrate Judy Latchman today refused to view or hear the contents of a Guyana Police Force (GPF) statement about testimony in the Mohameds extradition case, telling defence attorneys that she had deliberately kept herself insulated from media reports and did not want the statement brought to her attention.
The ruling came as attorney Siand Dhurjon renewed the defence’s concerns over the September 11 GPF statement, which he accused of misquoting and mischaracterising evidence given by Special Branch Head Senior Superintendent Prem Narine while he remains under cross-examination.
Dhurjon told the court that the defence considered the publication a serious concern because Narine’s cross-examination had previously been suspended after he indicated that he wanted legal advice before answering further questions.
He argued that, while the witness was awaiting that advice, his employer issued what he described as an institutional explanation and justification of his evidence.
Dhurjon said the statement could prejudice public opinion and potentially the court’s view of the evidence.
But Magistrate Latchman made clear that she would not allow the contents of the statement to enter her consideration of the case.
“I don’t want to see it,” the Chief Magistrate said.
She said she does not pay attention to news reports, social media or other material outside the courtroom and had “sequestered” her mind to focus on the evidence properly before her.
“I address my mind to nothing only these green papers, the deposition forms, and what is coming out from that witness box,” she said.
Magistrate Latchman told the defence that if it regarded the police statement as a grave concern, it could take whatever action it considered appropriate, but she did not want to see the statement, videos or related social media material.
The exchange followed the defence’s September 18 letter to Police Commissioner Clifton Hicken demanding that the GPF withdraw the statement and identify who drafted and authorised it. The defence has also indicated that it intends to seek summonses for those officers.
The GPF has maintained that its September 11 statement was issued to clarify media reports and rejected any suggestion that evidential documents had been destroyed.
The defence disputes that account, pointing to Narine’s evidence that he personally shredded and burned three books and believed one contained a note concerning an interaction between the Mohameds and US law-enforcement official Sandy Rao.
With the Magistrate declining to engage with the police statement, the defence then returned to the issue that had halted Narine’s cross-examination — the legal advice he sought before answering further questions and the disclosure of documents requested from him.
The hearing was subsequently adjourned for about 15 minutes after Narine was asked to retrieve a copy of the Secrets Act and the declaration he signed, documents the defence says are central to its questioning about his authority to destroy records.
Discussion