NCAA Hockey Jerseys sblph103

fd9je6mn

In a packed courtroom yesterday, the treason case against Army reservist Leonard Wharton, Major Bruce Munroe and wife Carol-Ann Munroe, continued with the prosecution and the defence again going head to head over what the defence is claiming is the non correlation of charges as against what the constitution stipulates the charge should entail.For the last three hearings, the court, presided over by Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry, has been listening to arguments from the state and the defence pertaining to the particulars of the treason charge.On one hand, the defence which is headed by Attorney Nigel Hughes, is arguing that the charge against the treason trio is not corresponding with the law and moreover it is missing a key element on which any treason charge should rely.On the other hand, state-appointed prosecutor Vic Puran, who had initially told the court that he would seek to amend the charge, is saying that the charge could stand as it is and that there is nothing omitted.In the charge against the three accused there is mention of the persons intending to levy war in Guyana and to depose of the President.But Hughes is arguing that according to the constitution there must be a clear indication of the manifestation of the intent to commit treason by an overt act. He is saying that there must be more than just an intention or a thought for the crime of treason to be committed. The lawyer is adamant that none of what the law is saying has been made part of the charge against the accused.He consequently told the court that in light of the evidence being brought by the prosecution, it would be safe to assume that if anyone only contemplated or thought to overthrow or even kill the President then it becomes an act of treason, punishable by prosecution.The lawyer further argued that with the omission of the overt act or without the identification of what that overt act reportedly committed by the accused entailed, then it is difficult for the defence to lay their case.For one thing, the lawyer argued, the accused would not know what they are answering to or what they did, that was deemed treasonous.Puran, prior to this, had laid over submissions to the court as to why the charge against the accused could stand. He sought to explain that with the intention alone,Cheap NFL Jerseys, that was the overt act committed for the charge of treason to stand against the accused.Puran argued that within the charge, “there is the intention to……” With that, the lawyer claimed that the intention was the overt act committed. Puran argued that the overt act could not be brought out in the particulars of the charge, but the evidence of the overt act must be brought out when the evidence against the accused is given.And with that, another argument began as Hughes again touched on the case of the defence being unsure because of the unstated overt act. “The accused must know what they are answering to. The purpose of the overt act is for the defence to address the issue, and not the principle charge of treason.” Hughes further said that the charge makes no reference to any such overt acts.Puran laid over his submissions while quoting from authorities to support his arguments for the charge to stand. Puran told the court that it was a case of the three persons coming together and conspiring to commit the act, only that it was not carried out.The matter was adjourned until next Wednesday. The court will continue to peruse the very thick file of submissions presented by the two sides.The prosecution had closed its case since March 5. Three major witnesses had testified in the matter. Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Simeon Reid, Army Lieutenant Colonel Sydney James and chief witness Quincy Critchlow were the three to give their testimony before the closing of the case.The Munroes and Wharton are accused of conspiring with persons unknown to overthrow the Guyana Government by way of anarchy.