A panel of three judges headed by Chief Justice Lensely Wolfe yesterday began to hear a renewed application for a judicial review of the circumstances under which Patrick Genius was killed three years ago.

The application was presented by Richard Small, one of the attorneys representing Genius’ mother, Leonie Marshall, who is agitating for the review and, by extension, murder charges against the three policemen accused of killing her son.

Essentially Marshall wants the court to grant:

* an order of mandamus to force Kent Pantry, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), to press charges against Detective Corporals Ronald Francis and Claude James, and Corporal Earl Grant;

* an order of certiorari to quash Pantry’s decision not to press charges against the three policemen;

* an order of mandamus to force Pantry to outline his reasons for not charging the policemen; and

* an order of mandamus to force Pantry to arrange for Genius’ body to be exhumed for the purpose of removing the bullets lodged in his body.

Small argued yesterday that the judicial review was the only legal remedy available to Marshall in the face of the DPP’s decision not to prosecute.

Genius was killed on December 13, 1999, in what the police said was a shoot-out. However, the jury that sat in on the coroner’s inquest into the matter concluded that the policemen were criminally responsible.

Despite their finding however, the coroner referred the matter back to Pantry, who ruled that there was not sufficient evidence with which to charge the policemen.

His decision angered human rights watchdog Amnesty International, which said the killing “bore the classic hallmarks of execution, with deliberate incapacitation followed by killing”.

Preliminary forensic investigations into Genius’ death suggested that the 32-year-old was shot several times in his back and in the back of his head.

Today, when the case continues, Pantry will answer Small’s argument, which was made against the background of a refusal by Supreme Court judge, Roy Jones in April to grant Marshall an extension of time in which to make the application.

Justice Jones’ refusal, which was based on procedural shortcomings on the part of Marshall’s lawyers, was accompanied by the observation that the case created room for serious argument.