PROSECUTING COUNSEL Mehdi Choony accused the defence of playing “delaying tactics” in an attempt to stall the preliminary inquiry into the murder of Irish teacher Michaela Harte, it emerged in court yesterday.
“Prosecution has been ready since Monday to start the preliminary inquiry. Witnesses have been present since then. We have been having delaying tactics particularly from defence of one of the accused Avinash Treebhoowon coming up with frivolous motions in order to delay matters before this court. It is high time that this should end and that we are allowed to call the witnesses,” he told the District Court magistrate Sheila Bonomally.
Yesterday’s hearing further delayed the start of the preliminary inquiry, with murder suspect Avinash Treebhoowon’s legal team – Sanjeev Teeluckdharry and Ravi Rutnah – presenting several motions.
The magistrate adjourned the court’s sitting and she will deliver a ruling for all the motions raised yesterday on Monday next.
The protest by the prosecution followed the defence lawyers’ statement that under their client’s instructions, they lodged an application for a judicial review at the supreme court on the ruling delivered by the magistrate on Monday.
This move by the defence could possibly put the preliminary inquiry on hold for four weeks while waiting for a decision from the supreme court on the judicial review.
Defence lawyer Mr Teeluckdharry argued that several issues came through the ruling delivered on June 21st in connection with the right to be heard by an impartial court and the right of an accused party to cross-examine witnesses.
“The defence contends that the right to cross-examine prosecution’s witnesses is a fundamental constitutional right and it has been the practice in this country,” said Mr Teeluckdharry.
He also asked for a stay of proceedings at the district court of Mapou in connection to the preliminary inquiry pending the determination of the judicial report. The supreme court will have to pass judgement on a ruling delivered by the magistrate Ms Bonomally.
Navin Bhoyrul, legal counsel of murder suspect Sandip Mooneea, supported a motion made by Mr Teeluckdharry stating that prosecution witness John McAreavey, the victim’s husband, “should be tendered for cross-examination purposes”.
They also asked the prosecution to review its position on the release on bail of their respective clients.
Mr Teeluckdharry said that in the event that defence was denied the right to cross-examine Mr McAreavey, they would move for “the stay of the preliminary enquiry on the count of abuse of process of the court”.
When asked about the basis of an application of a judicial review and a stay of proceedings by the magistrate, defence counsel Teeluckdharry said: “The ruling of the learned magistrate has acted in breach of natural justice as she had herself presided on the motion to challenge the bench.”
In a response to the motions lodged, Mr Choony maintained the prosecution’s position that they would not need Mr McAreavey for the duration of the inquiry nor would he be tendered for cross-examination.
“If the defence believes that witness 25 is paramount to their case, they have every right to call him themselves. Proceedings before this court cannot be stayed for abuse of process just because the prosecution does not wish to call or tender that witness for cross-examination,” said Mr Choony.
The prosecuting counsel also submitted that the motion for the judicial review should be set aside.
Mr Choony refused to be drawn on arguments concerning the release on bail of the accused as the matter will be heard next Monday at the supreme court.