Mc Nicolls refuses to step down

CHIEF MAGISTRATE Sher-man Mc Nicolls yesterday refused to step down from hearing the preliminary inquiry into a conspiracy to murder charge against Jamaat Al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr on the ground of bias. Bakr’s attorney Pamela Elder asked Mc Nicolls to recluse himself from hearing the inquiry following a statement made in court last week by Mc Nicolls that he consulted with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the issue of the taking of the oath by prosecution witness Brent “Small Brent” Danglade. Mc Nicolls said a magistrate was a creature of statute and that is where he derives his powers. He said his consultation with the DPP was done within the ambit of the law — Section 22 of the Indictable Offences (Preliminary Inquiry) Act.

Mc Nicolls said the matter was raised during the inquiry. The DPP, he added, referred him to a passage in Archbold which assisted in resolving the matter. On the question of bias, the Chief Magistrate said there must be something real. “There is no merit in this submission. I want to assure the defence that this was the only issue over which I consulted with the DPP. I will continue and be guided by the law. The objection is overruled,” Mc Nicolls ruled. Bakr, 62, is before Mc Nicolls in the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrates’ Court charged with conspiring with David “Buffy” Maillard and others to murder Salim Rasheed and Zaki Aubidah at Citrine Drive, Diamond Vale, Diego Martin, on June 4, 2003. Deputy DPP Carla Brown-Antoine and State Attorney George Busby are prosecuting, while Owen Hinds Jr assists Elder for the defence. Hearing continues on November 11. When the inquiry resumed yesterday, Elder raised the issue of Mc Nicolls consulting with the DPP.  “You rose and returned and said you consulted with the DPP. This sent shivers to my client.” Elder continued, “we would want you to recluse yourself on the ground of bias. It is the DPP who brought this matter against my client. Is he going to be a judge in his own cause?”

Elder asked the Chief Magistrate, “what other consultations have you done in this matter? What future consultations would be done? If other issues arise again, would you again consult with the DPP on these issues? What influence does the DPP have over you in the determination of legal issues? Moreover, you have the statutory duty to commit or discharge. Would the DPP be consulted in this issue?” Brown-Antoine said Mc Nicolls had the power under the Act to consult with the DPP. She said the issue of the oath arose during the inquiry. “It was a novel issue which I have not dealt with before. When you returned, you referred us to the passage in Archbold. At the end of the day, the issue was decided by that passage. “I can see no ground for saying that what you did give cause for the appearance of bias. You are empowered by the Constitution or the Act to consult with the DPP. A magistrate complying with the Act does not give rise to the appearance of bias,” Brown-Antoine added. Brent Danglade continued his cross-examination yesterday. He surprised everyone when asked what religion he was. He replied “Roman Catholic.” On the last occasion, he swore by the Koran and said that that book was the only book binding on his conscience. Yesterday, he was a Catholic and swore by the Bible.