Magistrate dismisses gun-related charges against businessman

News Jada Loutoo 14 Hrs Ago

The Hall of Justice. - File photo

A businessman held on two firearm-related charges after he was alleged to have failed to store his weapon and ammunition at a police station before leaving the country has been discharged by an Arima magistrate.

Magistrate Avion Gill, on December 8, found the businessman not guilty after she ruled that prosecutors failed to prove he held a valid firearm user’s licence and that items seized from his home met the legal definitions of a firearm and ammunition. The businessman has asked to remain anonymous because of security risks.

In her ruling, Gill said the prosecution’s case collapsed because it relied solely on the defendant’s statements and provided no scientific confirmation of the alleged Glock 17 pistol or 24 rounds of 9 mm ammunition, nor independent verification that the firearm user’s license existed.

According to the evidence presented in the Arima Third Court, airport security officers discovered a single round of ammunition while scanning the businessman’s belongings as he prepared to travel to Guyana on May 14, 2024. During an interview with police, he claimed to be a licensed firearm holder and later allowed officers to visit his home, where he opened a safe and handed over a pistol and ammunition.

Prosecutors argued the defendant failed to arrange the required police-station storage for the weapon and ammunition before leaving the country. He entered not-guilty pleas to both charges, remained silent during the trial and presented a no-case submission.

Gill said the state did not present verification from the Office of the Commissioner of Police or any other authority confirming the license number, nor forensic analysis establishing that the seized items met the Firearms Act’s definitions. She held that while the defendant’s admissions drew police attention to the items, he had no burden to prove anything, and the state could not rely on his statements alone.

The court previously rejected a no-case submission, but Gill noted the higher threshold at the close of evidence required proof beyond a reasonable doubt; a standard she said was not met.

Because of the lack of corroborating evidence, Gill acquitted the businessman of both charges.

Attorney Vashisht Seepersad represented the businessman.