Prominent defence counsel, Glen Hanoman is calling for the Head of the Guyana Forensic Science Laboratory (GFSL), Tamika Henry to be jailed for willfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. This comes on the heels of an alleged phone call made by Henry to Magistrate Alex Moore.

During the call, it is alleged that Henry told the Magistrate she is disappointed in the manner in which he is handling a case. The matter involves a Crabwood Creek, Upper Corentyne, couple, Mool Manniram and Reshma Manniram who are before the courts for having in their possession suspected counterfeit US currency.

This morning, Hanoman complained to Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan.

Hanoman, in addressing the court, stated that Custom Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU) ranks went into his clients’ home, destroyed their furniture, took away a DVR and drank the beverages in their refrigerator. In this regard, the lawyer accused the State of abusing its powers.

He added, “As far as I am concerned, the head of the forensic science lab should be in jail. CANU should also be charged for damage to property and stealing from my clients.”

He further added, “I don’t even know if the manner in which the magistrate recuses himself [from the matter] might be deliberate too because we were about to get a ruling that the ‘expert’ witness is not an expert and it was at that stage that everything went awry.”

Hanoman stressed that it is unfair to his clients who are now subjected to a new trial as a result of the conduct of these officials.

This, he says, is because of the action and malpractice of the State. This led the lawyer to ask the state of affairs in relation to the break and enter and larceny charge filed against CANU. He also sought to inquire if Henry would be charged.

Hanoman said, “If it was my clients that had called the magistrate in relation to a benefit of a ruling, they would have been in jail. Any results from the GFSL is now gullible because if they see themselves not neutral but as part of the prosecution belief.”

On November, 27 last, when the matter was called at Springlands, the Magistrate told the court that he will no longer be presiding over the matter after a public officer telephoned expressing concerns about the way he was handling the case.

This was in relation to a certain person testifying from the laboratory being deemed an expert witness by the court. As a protocol, the witness was compelled to testify on his/her qualifications/experience in the field. After this is done, the court would then make a ruling on whether to deem that witness an expert in a particular field. This has to be done before the witness is allowed to give opinions on various aspects of the case.

The Chief Magistrate, after listening to the lawyer, told the court prosecutor to seek advice from the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP). She then adjourned the matter until January 9, 2020, at the Whim Magistrate’s Court.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here