AT THE pre-trial hearing into the murder of Michaela Harte yesterday, a lawyer for one of the accused challenged a police record of a remark allegedly made to his father after the event.
Sanjeev Teeluckdharry contested a diary book entry made at the police headquarters on January 13th where it was recorded that suspect Avinash Treebhoowon told his father: “Forget your son now. I have made a mistake.”
The statement was inserted in the diary book by Sgt Rashid Bhagaloo who was a witness in the preliminary inquiry on Wednesday.
Mr Teeluckdharry told magistrate Sheila Bonomally that his client gave a different statement which was not properly recorded.
“Do not forget your son. I have made a mistake. I have left home. I ask you to forgive me. I want to come back home.”
Mr Teeluckdharry told the court that his client had made this statement when he saw his father on January 13th at the office of the Mauritius Criminal Investigation Team office.
Police inspector Ranjit Jokhoo said the statement made by the defence counsel yesterday was wrong and that the one which was recorded in the diary on January 13th under entry number 45 was “faithfully” inserted.
Mr Teeluckdharry told Ms Bonomally that his client left the family house in Amaury a few weeks before his arrest and went to live at Dahlia Road with his wife following a family dispute.
Navin Bhoyrul, for co-accused Sandip Mooneea, yesterday queried the credibility of the prosecution’s star witness, Raj Theekoye.
Mr Bhoyrul asked Mr Jokhoo about the criminal records of Mr Theekoye. He also pointed out that Mr Theekoye was initially arrested during the course of the investigation and was detained for about two weeks.
“I am not aware of his previous convictions,” Mr Jokhoo said. “The case file is already in the possession of the DPP.”
Mr Bhoyrul also pressed for the telephone number of Ms Harte’s husband John McAreavey. His mobile was secured on January 10th but was later returned to him.
Mehdi Choony, prosecuting, argued that the prosecution could not be compelled to give the private phone number of Mr McAreavey as he was “neither a suspect nor an accused party in the case”.
Ms Bonomally ruled that “should the number be required by the defence, they should go through the proper channels”.
She added that the divulging the personal phone number of Mr McAreavey in the district court would amount to a violation of his fundamental rights.
The preliminary hearings continue on Monday