Government may have to pay millions of dollars in compensation to scores of people who were denied bail under the controversial Bail (Amendment) Bill after the now defunct legislation was deemed to be unconstitutional yesterday.
High Court Judge Carol Gobin, in a judgment delivered in the Port-of-Spain High Court, ruled in favour of two police officers accused of accepting a bribe and a 21-year-old student who was denied bail for 120 days after being jointly charged for illegal possession of a gun found at her boyfriend’s home.
Anyone who was subject of the legislation prior to its expiration in August can now use the cases filed by PCs Justin Charles and Ryan Mahabir and Roytec student Danielle St Omer to launch their own claims for false imprisonment.
In her 44-page judgment, Gobin said the legislation was not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
“There is no evidence that the measures which denied bail in the circumstances covered by the amendment achieved the objectives of the legislation,” she said.
While she admitted the fact the legislation was passed unanimously by Parliament was grounds to not interfere with it, Gobin said the court had a duty to protect the fundamental constitutional rights of citizens.
She said the T&T Police Service failed to provide the court with evidence the legislation had addressed its concerns about repeat offenders and its ability to monitor the activities of people charged with gun-related crimes.
“This provision, in my view, was wholly unnecessary,” Gobin said, adding existing bail conditions would have sufficiently addressed the police’s concerns.
Referring to St Omer, who fell under the legislation after being arrested at her boyfriend’s home, Gobin described the law as capricious.
“The automatic denial of bail disallowed consideration of the personal circumstances, the level of involvement alleged or treatment of the accused as an individual,” she said.
She also suggested that the legislation removed the presumption of innocence as accused people were punished by being kept in inhumane remand conditions for three months after being charged.
Gobin also criticised the current bail regime, which she said mostly affected “poor people” who were the main users of the court system.
She referred to the case of Jerome Henry, a father charged with neglecting his son who drowned in a drain at their home last month, who spent more than a month in jail before he accessed bail this week.
“For every Henry there are dozens of others who have desperate relatives, no deeds and no cash. For those who are forced to remain inside, the system inflicts punishment, misery and oppression,” she said.
The damages awarded to Charles, Mahabir and St Omer will be calculated by a High Court Master. In addition to damages, the State was made to pay their legal costs.
Charles and Mahabir were represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Gerald Ramdeen, Jyanti Lutchmedial and Kent Samlal. St Omer was represented by Keith Scotland, while Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein led the State’s legal team.
Opposition hails ruling
Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar yesterday described the judgment as vindication for her and her party.
“The decision today vindicates the position that I took and that of the Members of Parliament on the Opposition bench not to support this legislation.
“Had we done otherwise we would have contributed to the breach of the rights of our citizens who have been denied bail under the provisions of this legislation,” she said in a release.
Although the legislation was passed during her tenure, Persad-Bissessar said she was opposed to it when the current Government attempted to renew it after its sunset clause.
“I was at pains to ask the Government to ‘pause for a cause’ in light of the concerns that the Opposition had raised. These concerns were based on developments in the law which had occurred subsequent to the initial passage of the legislation,” Persad-Bissessar said.