設為首頁收藏本站

A-Plus互動討論區

 找回密碼
 立即註冊

Login

免註冊即享有會員功能

搜索
熱搜: 活動 交友 discuz
查看: 15|回復: 0
打印 上一主題 下一主題

[田徑] Nuri Sahin Dortmund Shirts pzr0fvuo

[複製鏈接]

1萬

主題

1萬

帖子

4萬

積分

論壇元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

積分
48524
跳轉到指定樓層
樓主
發表於 2017-7-29 20:05:46 | 只看該作者 回帖獎勵 |倒序瀏覽 |閱讀模式
分享到: 更多
The Chandra Narine Sharma debacle took a further twist when the police instituted another obstruction of justice charge yesterday against the embattled television station owner.Sharma along with five of his associates, including his son-in-law Ravi Mangar, were all charged with obstruction of justice and were admitted to $100,000 bail on April 22,Jerome Boateng Germany Jersey, last.Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson yesterday instructed Sharma, that he was not required to plead to the second charge.It is alleged that between June 17 and June 24, 2010,Sergi Roberto Jersey, Sharma willfully attempted to obstruct the course of justice when he made contact with Natasha and Theresa Dhanraj, who are two witnesses in a criminal trial at which Sharma is a defendant. This second charge further alleges that Sharma tried to have the women recant their testimonies.Attorneys at law Nigel Hughes and Vic Puran represented Sharma yesterday.Hughes in his address to court said that the first time Sharma was charged with the offence the defence never offered any comment on the matter or the motivation of the charge.The lawyer said that he is now convinced that the charges are politically motivated.He further told the court that even before Sharma was charged with carnal knowledge of a young girl the media houses were well aware of the impending charge.Hughes said that now that the trial has commenced and he was in the process of cross examining the young girl, all of the statements which were given to the police have now made their way to the internet.The lawyer explained that statements which were on the internet published the young girl’s name, address and other pertinent evidence in the case in contravention of the recently passed Sexual Offences legislation.Hughes emphasized that what makes the entire situation sickening is that the headline reads “Statements leaked from the Guyana Police Force”.He said that acts which were committed by the guilty persons are totally against the law. Hughes stressed that the state is obligated to protect persons who give statements in criminal matters.The lawyer further stated that the website in which the statements were published on is owned by a well known PPP/C member.At this point Special Prosecutor,Juan Mata Jersey, Sanjeev Datadin, objected and stated that it wasn’t the proper forum to address the ownership of a website.Hughes noted that it was mind boggling to know that every potential victim has to fear the danger that his or her statements may be made public.He said that the statements which were published on the website are very specific.Moreover, the lawyer said, Sharma was never accused of stealing the statements,Ander Herrera Manchester Jersey, nor did he at anytime try to obtain the statements.The lawyer opined that the statements were either intentionally leaked or it was gross police negligence that caused them to be publicly published.“One has to ask….what is the reason and purpose behind this and also why the police haven’t moved to arrest the persons who are responsible?”Hughes added that the two persons who are mentioned in the charge were in protective custody.He said that he was not sure if they escaped or if they left willingly and were interviewed by a popular television personality.The lawyer added that neither of the two persons was forced into doing the interview. He said that certain things emanating from the interview have suggested that they were made to give evidence against Sharma.“Now that the persons are back in protective custody….Sharma is now charged with obstruction of justice.”Hughes continued to tell the court that the two women in question had given statements even before he was charged, stating that Sharma never committed an offence.He said that the charges against his client are perceived and motivated by considerations other than legal. Special Prosecutor Datadin sought to clarify that the two persons mentioned in the charge were never arrested by the police or were at anytime restrained against their will. At this point the magistrate questioned the prosecutor as to the whereabouts of the two females and whether they were present in court. The court’s orderly called out their names three times and no one answered.Hughes then interjected and explained that both women were taken to the Eve Leary Headquarters on April 16,Luuk de Jong Jersey, by attorney at law Tanya Warren. He said that after the lawyer entered the station, the police quickly took the women into a room and refused to grant Ms Warren access to her clients.Hughes said that the two women were seen a fortnight later.Datadin objected and said that the two women were taken by Hughes and they gave a statement which appeared to be “very difficult”.Attorney at law Vic Puran, who briefly addressed the court, said that the charges against his client were very serious.He said that the charges are so serious that they warrant a bail refusal. However the Sharma case is different,Blank Mexico Jersey, he said. He opined that the case is taking on a proportion outside of the legal realm.Puran urged the magistrate not to become ensnarled in the process. He also told the court that specific allegations have now been made against himself and Hughes.He said that it was reported in certain quarters, that he forced the women to give contradicting statements.Puran said that it was also reported that after he forced the women to give certain statements he handed them over to a popular political activist.According to Puran,Collen Warner Jersey, it is also rumored that he collected a substantial amount of money to do this.Prosecutor Datadin said that he was opposing bail because of the fact that Sharma was charged with a similar offence a mere two months ago.He said that bail should be refused since there is the likelihood of the accused committing the same offence. He said that given what has happened it was no longer a possibility but reality.Hughes interjected and said that charges instituted against his client are out of pure malice.Magistrate Robertson granted the accused $150,000 bail and ordered him to return on September 3.
回復

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄後才可以回帖 登錄 | 立即註冊

本版積分規則

重要聲明:本討論區是以即時上載留言的方式運作,A-Plus補習討論區對所有留言的真實性、完整性及立場等,不負任何法律責任。而一切留言之言論只代表留言者個人意見,並非本網站之立場,讀者及用戶不應信賴內容,並應自行判斷內容之真實性。於有關情形下,讀者及用戶應尋求專業意見(如涉及醫療、法律或投資等問題)。 由於本討論區受到「即時上載留言」運作方式所規限,故不能完全監察所有留言,若讀者及用戶發現有留言出現問題,請聯絡我們。A-Plus補習討論區有權刪除任何留言及拒絕任何人士上載留言(刪除前或不會作事先警告及通知),同時亦有不刪除留言的權利,如有任何爭議,管理員擁有最終的詮釋權。用戶切勿撰寫粗言穢語、誹謗、渲染色情暴力或人身攻擊的言論,敬請自律。本網站保留一切法律權利。

手機版|小黑屋|A-Plus互動討論區    

GMT+8, 2024-5-16 23:53 , Processed in 0.069192 second(s), 28 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表