Internet Radio

City Magistrate refuses DPP’s request to commit ‘Grey Boy’ to High Court for Crum-Ewing’s murder

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) on Tuesday afternoon instructed Magistrate Judy Latchman to commit former murder accused, Regan ‘Grey Boy’ Rodrigues to stand trial in the High Court for the murder of political activist Courtney Crum Ewing.

However, the magistrate refused one day after she had thrown out the case because of insufficient evidence.

Special prosecutor Nigel Hughes ago appeared before the Magistrate on the matter.

However, Magistrate Latchman informed Hughes that her court will not comply with that order on the grounds that she has already discharged the matter, the second since she had done so in September, 2016.

Forty- year old Rodrigues was Monday morning a free man again after the court found there was insufficient evidence for him to stand trial for the murder of Courtney Crum-Ewing.

Crum-Ewing was shot and killed on March 10, 2015 at Diamond, East Bank Demerara while he had been on a megaphone urging residents to turn out and vote for the then opposition coalition of A Partnership for National Unity+ Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC).

  • Lancelot Brassington

    I am baffled here. Can the DPP do that? Instruct a magistrate to commit someone to stand trial in the high court if the magistrate says that the evidence does not justify it? And why has madam Hack become so accommodating? I note that the mister will be receiving a national award. Madam Latchman also seems to be very concerned about Rodrigues’ rights. She was not so concerned about the rights of an underweight and immature teenager who did nothing more than stick out his arm and show an upturned middle finger to Jagdeo’s convoy of vehicles. Law becomes more baffling by the day and this particular situation becomes ‘curiouser and curiouser’. I am waiting to see where it all leads because the prosecution seems pretty determined. Latchman also seems pretty determined. I am sensing serious undercurrents here.
    My layman’s view is that if a murder weapon is found in the house of a known character then he should face the high court. Its not as if he has already been found guilty. Known characters have rights but the population also has rights.

    • Col123

      Baffling indeed…. but any incompetent lawyer can defeat your opinion about “weapon found in house” in your last paragraph… The violence,pillage and murders over the last decade requires exposure as to the intellectual authors, financiers… whether it’s political or societal decay.

    • rs dasai

      Lance
      Since there seems not to be more evidence than what was produced, and since the Honpurable Magistrate has found such ‘evidence’ to be insufficient’
      it will be a trial in futility. Suspicion is not proof. Remember LFSB and the bullet?

    • Orin Peters

      Mr b I’m surprise at your knowledge of guyana laws but may i remind you the DPP IS EQUIVALENT TO A JUDGE AND SHE IS THE ONLY ONE WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE JUDISERY YOU SEE HOW SHE TELLING THE MAGISTRATE ABOUT THE LAW .I THINK MISS LATCHMAN BELIEF SHE IS GOD.SHE ASK THE ACCUSE IF HE WOULD LIKE TO CALL ANY WITNESS AND HE SAID NO.SHE SAID SHE DO NOT THINK MR RODRIGUES PULL THE TRIGGAR BECAUSE SHE WAS THERE.

      • rs dasai

        Orin
        Equivalent is not equal , but who knows.

  • rudeo

    “When elephants fight the grass suffers”…an old Chinese proverb

  • Col123

    What difference does it make if the DPP is a Muslim?…Would it be easier on your half brain if the DPP was a Christian or a Hindu?