United States prosecutor Glenn Hanoman has described as “unusual” Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman’s decision to again refuse an application to revoke Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s bail in the ongoing extradition proceedings, signalling that the prosecution could challenge the ruling.
Hanoman, who made the application on behalf of the United States, said that in his 32 years practising criminal law, he had never encountered a case in which the grounds for revoking bail were as strong as those presented in Mohamed’s matter.
“I am not disappointed but I am surprised by what she has just said,” he told reporters outside the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday.
He added, “I have never come across a case in which there are such strong grounds for the revocation of bail. I have never come across a case where the grounds are so strong before.”
Hanoman said the prosecution would consider filing a judicial review challenge after receiving the Chief Magistrate’s reasons for refusing the application.
He argued that the ruling could set a bad precedent, particularly where a defendant faces additional criminal charges while already on bail and where allegations of interference with witnesses and obstruction of justice have been raised.
The prosecutor maintained that such circumstances constituted established grounds for revoking bail, adding that the prosecution had offered to present evidence to support its claims but, in his view, the court did not appear willing to hear it.
Hanoman also challenged the residential address Mohamed had provided to the court, claiming that the Opposition Leader did not live at the Republic Park address in which he was reportedly residing.
He said information received from the Guyana Police Force’s Special Branch Unit indicated that Mohamed did not reside there, although his father and other family members lived at the property.
Hanoman maintained that the prosecution could provide evidence to support its position and argued that giving an incorrect residential address could itself justify the refusal or revocation of bail.
On the question of a possible murder charge against Mohamed, Hanoman said he was not directly involved in the details of the police investigations but had obtained some information and documents relating to pending matters.
He said he had also written to the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking statements in relation to certain matters. According to Hanoman, some of the material had been provided to him on condition that it remain confidential because the investigations were ongoing.
He claimed that he had the material available and was prepared to show it to the magistrate, but she apparently did not wish to examine it.
Latchman, in refusing the application, said the existence of additional charges, without more substantial evidence, was insufficient to establish that Mohamed had committed or was likely to commit further offences.
She also found that the prosecution had not established that he was a flight risk or had provided a false residential address.
Mohamed, however, remains in custody at Lusignan Prison in relation to a separate cybercrime charge involving the alleged unauthorised disclosure of Safe City surveillance footage.
The ruling only preserves his bail in the extradition proceedings and does not affect his remand in that separate matter.
Azruddin Mohamed’s mother, Bonita Mohamed, has approached the High Court seeking to overturn Magistrate Abigail Gibbs’ decision to deny her son bail in the cybercrime case.
The application is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, November 4, before Justice Priscilla Chandra-Hanif at the High Court in Demerara.
