ALBERTON – The accused, Michael Sinequan, did not testify in court, but the bail statement formed part of the evidencet. The state mentioned that because Sinequan did not testify in court and there was no opportunity to cross examine his statement.
As part of the state’s closing arguments they said that the actions of the accused have gone over and above that of a person acting in self-defence, there could have been other ways to avoid an attack by the deceased.
The state further stated that he could have driven off, even if his glasses where knocked off his face, he should not have needed his glasses to start his car.
They also referred to the statement made by Sinequan at his bail application, which stated that he was able to avoid most of the punches.
Sinequan did not give any warning shots nor did he drive away.
The accused’s lawyer again brought the attention of the court to the fact that his client’s eyesight is not very good and thus he would need his glasses if he had to drive away. He also countered the argument that a warning shot should have been fired, as he was in a car.
There was no safe place to shoot a warning shot.
The defence ended their argument, posing the question of what is expected of the common man when he finds himself in a position like Sinequan’s, where you are in the company of your wife. What should he have done to protect himself and his wife in that situation?
The next time the case will be heard in court is May 11, where District Magistrate Lee-Ann Singh will deliver the judgement.
