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.

Monday, February 24, 2025

Landscaper challenges denial of bail under SoE act

by

32 days ago
20250123

Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A land­scap­er from Bel­mont has chal­lenged the de­ci­sion of a se­nior mag­is­trate to de­ny him bail af­ter he was charged with pos­ses­sion of high-pow­ered am­mu­ni­tion ear­li­er this month.

In a ju­di­cial re­view ap­pli­ca­tion filed yes­ter­day, Afi­ba Guer­ra, through lawyer Keron Ramkhal­whan, claimed that act­ing Deputy Chief Mag­is­trate Bri­an Dabideen made er­rors when he re­fused to grant him bail last Mon­day.

Guer­ra, a 28-year-old fa­ther of two from Up­per St Fran­cois Val­ley Road, Bel­mont, was ar­rest­ed on Jan­u­ary 9 at Zachari­ah Av­enue, Thick Vil­lage, Siparia, af­ter po­lice of­fi­cers al­leged­ly found 8 rounds of 7.62 cal­i­bre am­mu­ni­tion in a house he was in.

The cas­ings for the am­mu­ni­tion all bore the mark­ing “VEN 75.”

He plead­ed not guilty to the charge.

While Dabideen de­nied him bail, he said he would re­con­sid­er the po­si­tion when Guer­ra reap­pears in court on Feb­ru­ary 10.

Dur­ing the hear­ing, Dabideen al­so re­port­ed­ly ques­tioned why Guer­ra was charged un­der Sec­tion 8 of the Emer­gency Pow­ers Reg­u­la­tions 2024 for the on­go­ing State of Emer­gency (SoE) and not un­der Sec­tion 6 of the Firearms Act. Dabideen point­ed out that the max­i­mum prison sen­tence for breach­ing the SoE reg­u­la­tions is five years while the max­i­mum sen­tence un­der the leg­is­la­tion is eight years.

Po­lice pros­e­cu­tors claimed the po­lice com­plainant in the case act­ed on the ad­vice of the T&T Po­lice Ser­vice’s (TTPS) Le­gal Unit.

In the law­suit, Ramkhal­whan claimed that Dabideen did not pro­vide rea­sons for his de­ci­sion and ap­plied the wrong tests un­der the Bail Act and SoE reg­u­la­tions.

“The fol­low­ing will demon­strate that the In­tend­ed Re­spon­dent (Dabideen) when giv­ing his de­ci­sion, mis­ap­pre­hend­ed the facts and/or law and/or he gave no weight to ma­te­r­i­al con­sid­er­a­tions and/or was in­flu­enced by mat­ters that should not have been con­sid­ered,” Ramkhal­whan said.

He ad­mit­ted that un­der the Bail Act, a mag­is­trate may de­ny bail if they are sat­is­fied there are sub­stan­tial grounds for be­liev­ing the ac­cused may com­mit an of­fence while on bail. He al­so ac­knowl­edged that Sec­tion 17 of the SoE reg­u­la­tions al­lows mag­is­trates to de­ny bail if they can rea­son­ably ap­pre­hend that the per­son would en­gage in the com­mis­sion of breach­es of the peace or crim­i­nal of­fences if re­leased.

Ramkhal­whan ad­mit­ted that Guer­ra had pend­ing charges for firearm and am­mu­ni­tion pos­ses­sion, re­sist­ing ar­rest, us­ing ob­scene lan­guage and pos­ses­sion of cam­ou­flage cloth­ing stem­ming from an in­ci­dent in No­vem­ber 2021. How­ev­er, he not­ed that his client main­tained his in­no­cence and had been wait­ing for al­most four years for pros­e­cu­tors to dis­close ev­i­dence to com­mence the case.

Deal­ing with the mag­is­trate’s al­leged fail­ure to give suf­fi­cient rea­sons, Ramkhal­whan said his client could not mount a chal­lenge or show a change in cir­cum­stances with­out such. He claimed that Guer­ra’s pend­ing mat­ters were not enough to war­rant the de­nial of bail un­der the two pieces of leg­is­la­tion.

“The ho­n­ourable court’s phrase­ol­o­gy sug­gests that it con­sid­ered that he was charged for a sim­i­lar of­fence al­leged to have been com­mit­ted while on bail, the type of am­mu­ni­tion found, and the na­ture and se­ri­ous­ness of the of­fence, how­ev­er, we state that is not the le­gal test for de­nial of bail,” he said.

“The in­tend­ed re­spon­dent was statu­to­ri­ly ob­lig­at­ed to con­sid­er whether the risks as­so­ci­at­ed with the grant of bail may have been mit­i­gat­ed with the im­po­si­tion of con­di­tions,” he added.

Ramkhal­whan al­so point­ed out that dur­ing his bail ap­pli­ca­tion, he stat­ed that Guer­ra was con­tend­ing he was framed by the po­lice, who plant­ed the am­mu­ni­tion with the help of a key wit­ness.

“Giv­en this se­ri­ous claim, the ap­pli­ca­tion for bail be­comes crit­i­cal,” he said.

“It’s not just about se­cur­ing free­dom, it’s about pro­tect­ing the in­di­vid­ual from un­just de­ten­tion that may be the re­sult of po­lice mis­con­duct—a pat­tern that has un­for­tu­nate­ly plagued T&T in the past,” he added.

Ramkhal­whan al­so sug­gest­ed that bail should on­ly be de­nied when tru­ly nec­es­sary and jus­ti­fied.

“It’s cru­cial that we do not mis­tak­en­ly equate the de­nial of bail with solv­ing or de­ter­ring crime,” he said.

Through the law­suit, Guer­ra is seek­ing de­c­la­ra­tions over the de­ci­sion. He is al­so seek­ing an or­der quash­ing the de­ci­sion and re­mit­ting the case to an­oth­er mag­is­trate to con­sid­er.

The case is sched­uled to come up be­fore Jus­tice Joan Charles next Mon­day.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored