JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, February 28, 2025

Court upholds injunction filed by businessman against search by cops

by

Rhondor Dowlat
38 days ago
20250121

The High Court has up­held an in­junc­tion filed by busi­ness­man Dan­ny Guer­ra and his com­pa­ny, DG Homes Lim­it­ed, against po­lice of­fi­cers ac­cused of vi­o­lat­ing Guer­ra’s con­sti­tu­tion­al rights dur­ing an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to al­leged hu­man traf­fick­ing and wage vi­o­la­tions. 

The de­ci­sion, de­liv­ered yes­ter­day, is a le­gal vic­to­ry for Guer­ra in his on­go­ing bat­tle against po­lice ac­tions he claims were un­law­ful.

The case stems from a po­lice search at DG Homes’ of­fice in San­gre Grande in May 2024, dur­ing which Guer­ra al­leged his rights were in­fringed up­on. Guer­ra, rep­re­sent­ed by at­tor­ney Ger­ald Ramdeen, con­tend­ed that Sergeant Ra­jesh An­toine of the Spe­cial In­ves­ti­ga­tions Unit (SIU) pre­vent­ed his lawyer from be­ing present dur­ing ques­tion­ing. Guer­ra claimed this vi­o­lat­ed his right to le­gal coun­sel un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion.

De­spite pro­vid­ing pay­roll doc­u­ments to Min­istry of Labour of­fi­cials, who found no wage-re­lat­ed vi­o­la­tions, Guer­ra al­leged that Sergeant An­toine per­sist­ed in ques­tion­ing him about em­ploy­ing non-cit­i­zens and ac­cess­ing the com­pa­ny’s safe—ac­tions Guer­ra claimed oc­curred with­out le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tion.

Ini­tial­ly, Jus­tice Ava­son Quin­lan-Williams grant­ed an emer­gency in­junc­tion, bar­ring of­fi­cers from ques­tion­ing Guer­ra with­out his lawyer present. The court al­so or­dered the ev­i­dence col­lect­ed dur­ing the search to be sub­mit­ted to the Supreme Court Reg­is­trar.

In yes­ter­day’s hear­ing, Jus­tice Frank Seep­er­sad dis­missed an ap­pli­ca­tion by the State to strike out Guer­ra’s con­sti­tu­tion­al claim. The State ar­gued that Guer­ra’s law­suit was vex­a­tious and dis­rupt­ed an on­go­ing po­lice in­ves­ti­ga­tion. How­ev­er, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad found no ev­i­dence of any ac­tive in­ves­ti­ga­tion, crit­i­cis­ing the po­lice for al­leged­ly dis­re­gard­ing the court’s pri­or or­der.

“It is ab­solute­ly un­ac­cept­able for a po­lice of­fi­cer to dis­re­gard an or­der of the Supreme Court,” the judge stat­ed, em­pha­siz­ing the im­por­tance of ad­her­ing to court rul­ings in a democ­ra­cy gov­erned by the rule of law.

The court al­so ad­dressed the con­flict­ing ac­counts of the in­ci­dent. Guer­ra claimed that his lawyer was de­nied ac­cess dur­ing ques­tion­ing, while State at­tor­ney Ste­fan Jaikaran ar­gued that Guer­ra was not ac­tu­al­ly in­ter­viewed but mere­ly asked about the lo­ca­tion of doc­u­ments. De­spite these dis­crep­an­cies, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad reaf­firmed the fun­da­men­tal right to le­gal coun­sel, re­ject­ing the State’s ar­gu­ment that the in­junc­tion hin­dered the in­ves­ti­ga­tion. The judge not­ed that no ev­i­dence had been pre­sent­ed sug­gest­ing the law­suit had ob­struct­ed the po­lice’s work.

In his rul­ing, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad al­so cri­tiqued the State’s at­tempt to have the claim dis­missed on pro­ce­dur­al grounds, not­ing that con­sti­tu­tion­al claims are ex­empt from sum­ma­ry judg­ment. He fur­ther crit­i­cized the De­fen­dants for fail­ing to com­ply with the ear­li­er court or­der to pre­serve ev­i­dence ob­tained dur­ing the search, warn­ing that non-com­pli­ance could have se­ri­ous con­se­quences at tri­al.

Guer­ra’s le­gal team, which in­cludes at­tor­neys Wayne Sturge and Dayadai Har­ri­paul, will now pro­ceed with the case, which seeks to have the court de­clare that Guer­ra’s rights were breached and to se­cure com­pen­sa­tion.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored