Five charged with obstruction of justiceYesterday, five associates of the embattled businessman, Chandra Narine Sharma, including a former reporter and his son-in-law, were charged with attempting to obstruct the course of justice. The five,Cheap Adidas Superstar Shoes, Tyrone Ali, Mark Reid,Cheap NBA Store, Ravi Mangar, Raywattie Ramsaywack and Doodnauth Sharma all appeared at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court before Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson.They have all been charged for various acts designed to prevent the complainants from testifying against Chandra Narine Sharma. However, before the proceedings began, the prosecutor Stephen Telford asked that the matter be heard on camera.Telford said that he was making the application on the ground that the Virtual Complainants in the matter were all minors and that they are witnesses in a carnal knowledge matter against Chandra Narine Sharma.However,Austin Hooper Falcons Jersey, attorney at law Nigel Hughes presented to the court that only one of the Virtual Complainants in the matter is a minor. He went on to tell the court that prior to the charges, the names of all the Complainants were in some sections of the media.Hughes argued that the matter is not of a sexual nature and there is no need for closed court hearings.“What is the secrecy in this matter? We have nothing to hide and these people are all adults.” The Magistrate then afforded both parties some time to verify that the Complainants were all adults.It later transpired that one of them was 13 years old. The Magistrate then advised media operatives who were present in court, not to mention the name of the minor since the matter would be heard in open court.Ali first appeared and was represented by Mr. Nigel Hughes, Tanya Warren and Vic Puran. The 34-year-old cameraman who has been employed with CNS Channel Six for some 17 years has been charged with attempting to obstruct the course of justice.On April 18,Wholesale Jerseys Cheap, last, he allegedly sought information by attempting to enquire from a minor about the whereabouts of her siblings. The charge was indictable and the accused was not required to plead.His lawyer, in making a bail application, told the court that Ali is married and lives at 714 Cummings Lodge. He is a father of two minors. Hughes told the court that Ali is currently the administrator of CNS Channel Six and is a journalist by profession.“It is unfortunate that all the hallmarks of this case show that someone has a personal agenda against Mr. Sharma and now persons closely associated to him…these charges are ridiculous,Air Max 98 Gundam Release Date,” Hughes said.He added that this is the most blatant and malicious attack on the freedom of the press, since his client was merely inquiring from one of the Complainants the whereabouts of her siblings,Nike Air Max 95, which is a question that every media house wanted to know.“I am petrified, if the police can say a journalist asking questions is a criminal offence. So then the journalists who questioned the DPP on the whereabouts of the girl in the Sharma matter should also be charged”.“Andrew Douglas who was a wanted man at the time did an interview and it was aired in some sections of the media but no one was ever charged.” However, the police prosecutor objected to bail on the grounds that if released the accused will once again make attempts to tamper with the witnesses.Bail was however granted to the tune of $100,000. Ali is expected to make his next court appearance on May 13.Then the Magistrate read a joint charge to Ravi Mangar, who is the son-in-law of C.N. Sharma, and to Mark Reid who is employed with an entity managed by Mangar. The two were charged with attempting to obstruct the course of justice. On April 17, they allegedly offered the sum of $2 M and a house along with a plot of land, to the Virtual Complainant in a carnal knowledge case.That charge, too, was indictable and the accused were not required to plead. They were represented by Mark Waldron and Tanya Warren. In making a bail application, Waldron told the court that the charge against his client came about from malicious gossip.He argued that it would have been impossible for his clients to meet with the Complainants to offer them money and a house, when they were in protective custody.He said that since April 16, the Complainants were in protective custody, according to the Director of Public Prosecution and the charge instituted, his clients met with one Complainant on April 17.He added that his clients have every intention to return for their trail. Once again the prosecution objected to bail on t