8 NEWS
wednesDAY, JANUARY 14, 2015 | guyanatimesGY.com
Trio remanded for robbery under arms Marshal lives at Chappel Street, Lodge, Georgetown while Khudu has a fixed place if abode at Lot 360 Independence Boulevard, La Penitence, Georgetown. The facts of the case were read by Police Prosecutor, Inspector Michael Grant who narrated that at around 03:15h, Rowel was alone in his apartment when he heard
Keyon Simon
A
trio was remanded to prison after being arraigned on a robbery under arms charge, on Tuesday afternoon. Nineteen-year-old Keyon Simon; Akeem Marshal, 19; and 22-year-old Lionel Khudu appeared at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts before Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry. The charge alleged that on Januay 12, at La Penitence, Georgetown, while being armed with a gun, they robbed the Virtual Complainant (VC) Anthony Rowel of a number of items which totalled a value of $97,500. The three represented men pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their attorney, Adrian Thompson began making his bail application by first stating the defendants’ place of abode. Simon resides in Charlestown, Georgetown;
Akeem Marshal
a strange sound. He went outside to check and was confronted by the three defendants. One of them placed a gun to his head and hauled him into the apartment. A passerby saw the incident unfold and summoned the nearby patrol. The Police knocked at the door and Khudu opened it. The Police entered and Rowel began to narrate the incident. The men were told of the offence, arrested taken to the La Penitence Police Station.
The articles were recovered and the men were charged. As it related to the case, defence council stated that the Police patrol picked the trio early in the morning. He noted that his clients were heading toward the wharf when they decided to pick coconuts. Thompson further added that a gun was not used but rather a cutlass and the articles mentioned above where not found in their possession. The lawyer continued to argue that at the station, Rowel stated that he did not want to proceed with the court matter. Thompson added that the defendant who opened the door did not have any of the abovementioned articles in his hands nor were the articles taken out of the house. He stated that for an offence to be considered robbery, the items must be taken from the possession of the owner and into (in this case) the defendant’s. The Attorney questioned the prosecution’s facts as it related to his clients possessing the items and whether a gun was recovered from the scene or a cutlass. However, the Magistrate
Mean streets...
Lionel Khudu
informed defence council that the VC is a coconut vendor and the cutlass belonged to him according to Police files. Grant then objected to bail being granted citing the nature, gravity and prevalence of the offence, the fact that an alleged firearm was used in the commissioning of the crime, the penalty attached to the offence and the seriousness of the offence. The Prosecutor also said there was a likelihood that the defendants would not return for trial. The trio was remanded until January 20.
Duo on bail for $1M GPL robbery
T
wenty-seven-yearold Simon Primo of Alliance Road,
Eyew tness
Timehri, East Bank Demerara and 19-yearold Devon Brown of North Sophia, Greater Georgetown, were placed on bail after being arraigned on a break and enter and larceny charge. The duo made their second court appeared at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts before Magistrate Ann McLennan. The allegation read that on December 29, 2014, at Georgetown, they broke and entered the supervisory room of the Guyana Power and Light (GPL) and stole one desktop computer and a printer valued $1,000,000; property of GPL. The men pleaded not guilty to the charge when it was read to them. Police Prosecutor Denero Jones did not object to bail but requested that it be granted in a substantial amount. The duo was granted bail in a sum of $75,000 each. They are slated to make their next court appearance on January 16 before Chief Magistrate Priya SewnarineBeharry. The two defendants made their first appearance on December 30, 2014 before the Chief Magistrate, where they denied the allegation and were remanded to prison. On their first occasion, Police Prosecutor, Inspector Michael Grant objected to bail stating that the Police gave chase for the men and that they were wanted for a robbery under arms offence. He further stated that the items were recovered and the defendants may be possible flight risks, adding that they may not return for trial.
P
...of Paris
aris has long been celebrated as the “city of ...and for, lovers”. Folks who’d never set foot in France get all choked up when the Eiffel Tower the sidewalk cafés and the River Seine are mentioned... or perchance whispered!! But the “love” that resonates in so many of us was certainly not of the type that motivated the masked gunmen who mowed down a dozen cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. The gunmen claimed to be defending Islam and its prophet that they “love”. But what kind of “love” is it that drives one to kill?? Defenders of the gunmen would point out that the murdered cartoonists had offended the deep religious sensitivities of Muslims - including the gunmen - who decided to take matters into their own hands. The cartoonists would answer, if they could, that they were simply exercising a fundamental right of their society - free speech. Which gave them the right to say what was on their mind about any subject under the sun - and then some. And they could also say it in whatever which way they wanted including their forte - satire. In their scheme of things, they felt just as strongly in their right to skewer as the Muslim gunmen believed in the sanctity of their religion and the right to defend it against mockery. On each side of that tragic Paris affair, “love” would’ve undergirded the very strong beliefs. Now in the multicultural, multiracial, multi-religious world we now all live in, the deeper question that must therefore be answered is where do we draw the line when our innermost beliefs are being challenged - and indeed even mocked. In modern free speech discourse, it’s conceded by its defenders that “one cannot yell ‘fire’!! in a crowded theatre”. Meaning, of course that one must be aware of the possible dangerous consequences of one’s speech - and use prudence in one’s utterances. For instance, in many European countries, including France, it’s a crime to deny the holocaust - a restriction on free speech, but justified because it’s felt such denials might precipitate violence against Jews. Now while this Eyewitness under no way, shape or form, would ever condone killing anyone because they satirised one’s beliefs, if the Muslim position about mocking their prophet is so strong - shouldn’t there be some insistence on prudence in this area?? This Eyewitness concedes these are tough questions. But avoiding answering them won’t make the underlying problem disappear. And stands every chance of exacerbating fault lines in the civilisational war that Huntington predicted more than two decades ago. An eye for an eye will definitely leave all of us blind - for we all have faults.
...of London
Well, can you believe it?? Here it is, we thought following our own Caribbean Man, Eric Williams - that “massa day done”. But up comes the British Ambassador threatening to take out his “wild cane”, bend us over and give us six strokes. Why?? Well, Prezzie dared to exercise his powers under the Constitution to prorogue Parliament!!! And he’d followed good, solid precedent by the “Mother of all Parliaments” at Westminster, England - and other Commonwealth Parliaments. As this paper pointed out in a well reasoned editorial yesterday, even the Queen’s personal representative in Canada, the Governor-General (which we abolished back in 1970) blithely went along and passed the Prorogation Order. Why?? As he said, it was goddammed legal. “His was not to reason why....” But what’s more insulting is that back in the mean streets of London, the British Foreign Secretary - forgetting he wasn’t “Secretary for the Colonies” any longer - had earlier demanded that prorogation be ended “as soon as possible”. Well, Jeez!!! Isn’t this what Prezzie’s already promised??
...of Georgetown
With all the talk about prorogation and elections, MayorFor-Life Hamilton Green’s gotten a free pass. In which other City would a Mayor get away with such filth in the City streets??