BY FRANCIS JOSEPH
Businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife, Genevieve, have gone to the Court of Appeal seeking their immediate release from prison.
In the appeal filed on Tuesday, Hadeeds’ lawyers raised more than a dozen grounds of appeal, claiming that Justice Frank Seepersad made several errors in refusing their release from Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) on June 30.
They claimed Justice Seepersad was wrong to rule that they could be compensated by the State if they eventually succeed in their substantive lawsuit, in which they allege they were targeted by the Government based on their ethnicity and an ongoing legal dispute over the termination of leases for State land.
They also contended that Justice Seepersad wrongly required the couple to prove that their continued detention was illegal. They claimed the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) and the State were instead required to justify the lawfulness of their detention.
The couple also claimed that Justice Seepersad failed to properly consider their allegations of discrimination.
They added, “The Learned Judge erred in law, in his provisional assessment of the merits, by unduly deferring to the Minister, in circumstances where the Appellants (Hadeeds) had adduced credible and largely unchallenged evidence that demonstrated that prima facie the arrests, detentions, and PDOs were procured for an improper purpose and in bad faith.”
They further claimed that Justice Seepersad failed to consider evidence they presented regarding the conditions of their detention at the Golden Grove State Prison, Arouca.
The lawyers said the appeal was urgent and should be heard on an expedited basis before July 27 when the Hadeeds’ judicial review case is expected to be heard.
Dominic, 52, Genevieve, 42, and her relative, Star Sabga, 69, were detained by warrant on June 24 and 25 respectively from their homes in Westmoorings.
The warrants indicated that they were being investigated for conspiracy to commit murder. The PDOs were served on them on June 27.
The PDOs stated that they were being detained over an alleged plot to murder Government officials and Members of Parliament.
The probe allegedly stemmed from intelligence gathered by a national security organisation that was not identified in the PDOs.
Justice Seepersad refused their interim release but granted them leave to pursue a substantive case.
He added, “It is essential to distinguish that even if their arrests and detentions were invalid, such does not impact the decision of the minister to issue the PDOs.”
Although he acknowledged the conditions the couple had to endure and continue to endure in prison, Justice Seepersad said they could be compensated through damages if they are eventually successful in their legal challenge.
He added, “While the court appreciates the distress from detention, it does hold the view that there may be greater harm if they are released and the intelligence upon which the police and minister acted proves to be true.”
