Man’s bail denial leads to threats of legal action

News Jada Loutoo 16 Hrs Ago

The Hall of Justice. - File photo

ATTORNEYS for a Mayaro man have threatened legal action against the state after he was denied bail on robbery charges because of an erroneous criminal record entry.

In a pre-action protocol letter sent to the Solicitor General on December 4, attorneys Frank Gittens and Douglas Bayley argued that a non-existent pending firearm matter led to their client being denied bail and kept in custody for months.

According to the letter, the man was arrested on November 15, 2019, and charged days later with robbery-related offences in the San Fernando Magistrates’ Court.

When he first appeared on November 20, 2019, tracing information was unavailable. Two days later, the letter said, police produced a tracing report showing a pending charge dated January 2011, at the Arima Magistrates’ Court. Because Section 5(3)(a) of the Bail Act, as amended in 2019, bars magistrates from granting bail to accused persons with pending matters of a similar nature, the magistrate “had no discretion” to consider bail. The letter said the man insisted he had no such case, but he was remanded and repeatedly denied bail at subsequent hearings.

Gittens said the error remained uncorrected until an application was made in the High Court and the man was granted bail by Master Margaret Sookraj-Goswami on September 10, 2020.

The letter said the criminal records office of the police service later confirmed the 2011 matter never existed and removed it from the record.

Gittens said the mistake was “gross negligence,” which they say resulted in the unlawful deprivation of the man’s liberty without due process.

While held at Golden Grove Prison, the man allegedly endured overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, including a dysfunctional toilet and poor ventilation, and was beaten by prison officers during a disturbance in March 2020.

He is seeking compensatory and vindicatory damages for the alleged breaches of his rights.

The pre-action letter argued that his rights under Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 5(2)(f) of the Constitution, including the right to liberty, protection of the law and reasonable bail without just cause, were violated. It also contends that his near year-long detention was the direct result of the state’s administrative error and failure to correct it.

The attorneys have given the state 30 days to respond before filing proceedings.