SOCU to appeal after Magistrate dismisses charges against convicted fraudster

See full statement from the Special Organised Crime Unit:

On Friday, June 27, 2025, Prosecutors of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) were surprised to learn that Magistrate Delon Bess of the Diamond Magistrate’s Court had dismissed three charges pending against convicted fraudster, Dave Rajeshwar Persaud.

In April 2025, Persaud was sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment for committing the offence of Obtaining by False Pretence. There were three pending charges before His Worship, Magistrate Delon Bess, scheduled for continuation of trial.

SOCU prosecutors recounted that on the morning of Thursday, May 29, 2025, at 6:39 am, they received a WhatsApp message from Magistrate Bess Clerk, requesting that they suggest an adjournment date because Magistrate Bess was scheduled to sit at the Leguan Magistrate Court as opposed to the Diamond Magistrate Court on that date. The clerk was asked if a date in June would be convenient for the Court, and he responded in the affirmative. Consequently, June 27, 2025, was suggested as an alternative date for the trial’s continuation, and the Clerk confirmed that that date was convenient for the Court.

On Friday, June 27, 2025, at around 12:20 hours, SOCU prosecutors related that after waiting hours for the matters to be called, they enquired from Magistrate Bess about the status of the matter. The sitting Magistrate directed the Prosecutors to make enquiries with the court clerk, and the clerk informed the prosecutors that the matters had been dismissed on the 29th of May 2025. When asked why the matters were dismissed, Magistrate Bess indicated that he was at Leguan Magistrate’s Court, and on the morning of May 29, 2025 and that he joined the Diamond Court zoom to deal with the matter of Dave Rajeshwar Persaud who was present on the zoom platform from prison, but observed that there was no SOCU prosecutors present nor were there any witnesses present at the Court. As a consequence, the matters were dismissed.

Points to note:

One of the cases was partly heard and the victim was under cross examination in the witness box. The Magistrate was required to close the cross examination, order the prosecution case close and do submission of the evidence that were already lead. Then if there was not enough evidence to convict, then dismiss the case. In this case it was not done and there is so such note made on the Magisterial Jacket by the Magistrate that the procedure was followed, which is highly irregular.

It was highly unusual for a Magistrate sitting Leguan Magistrates’ Court, which is a different magisterial district and dismissing cases that is before a court in Diamond, which is in a different Magisterial District.

Checks were later made to the correspondence between the Court Clerk and SOCU prosecutors, and it was revealed that the Clerk failed to inform the sitting Magistrate of setting an alternative adjournment date. SOCU intends to appeal the matters.