Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A man convicted of murder has won his lawsuit over the failure of the State to appoint an Inspector of Prisons for two periods of his lengthy incarceration.
In a judgment late last week, High Court Judge Devindra Rampersad upheld the lawsuit brought by Jason Le Maitre, who is serving a 23-year sentence for murdering a Mayaro plumber during a home invasion in 2004.
Justice Rampersad found that Le Maitre's constitutional rights to protection of the law and not to be deprived of provisions to give effect to the right were breached when the office remained vacant between June 2016 and August 2017, and for two years between 2019 and 2021.
Justice ordered $25,000 in vindicatory damages but rejected Le Maitre's claim for additional compensation based on his failure to prove detriment based on lack of an office holder during the two periods.
Le Maitre entered the prison system in 2004 after he and another man were initially accused of murdering 29-year-old Anthony Lemessy in August that year.
Two men entered Lemessy's house and demanded that Lemessy, who they referred to as "a pusher," hand over his stash of drugs.
Lemessy denied having any drugs and gave the men $1,500. The men then searched the apartment and took Lemessy's gold chain and cellphone.
They then led Lemessy outside, forced him to kneel on the ground and shot him several times in his head before escaping.
In July 2022, Le Maitre and his co-accused were allowed to plead guilty to felony murder and were sentenced.
Under the felony murder rule, the mandatory death penalty for murder is waived in circumstances where death results during the commission of a lesser criminal offence, which in most cases is robbery.
In his lawsuit, Le Maitre, through his lawyers led by Anand Ramlogan, claimed that during the prolonged vacancies, he and other prisoners were denied access to an important procedural safeguard.
They noted that the prisons inspector is afforded independent oversight, has access to complaints, can inspect prison conditions and report defects in prison management, discipline and administration.
While the Office of the Attorney General confirmed the vacancies, it questioned whether Le Maitre's constitutional rights were infringed as alleged.
It claimed that Le Maitre still had access to the prison's internal complaint mechanisms and there was no evidence that he ever requested a meeting with the prisons inspector.
In determining the case, Justice Rampersad noted that Parliament did not intend for the prisons inspector to be a nominal appointment based on the important role afforded to the office.
"The Inspector is meant to guard the guards by providing oversight of those who exercise coercive authority over prisoners," Justice Rampersad said.
He also found that the internal complaint system is not an adequate alternative.
"The Inspector's role is different. It gives prisoners access to a person outside the hierarchy, who has statutory powers to inspect, inquire, examine and report," Justice Rampersad said.
He rejected claims that there was a discretion to appoint an inspector based on the words "may appoint" in the Prisons Act.
"The State cannot rely on the word 'may' to defeat the operation of the very safeguard which the Act and the Rules contemplated," he said.
He suggested that Le Maitre did not need to prove that his complaints over prison conditions would have succeeded if an inspector had been appointed in order to prove that his constitutional rights were breached.
Stating that the failure to appoint was unreasonable and fundamentally unfair, Justice Rampersad said: "It stripped the relevant provisions of practical effect and left the claimant without a protection which the law intended him, as a prisoner, to have."
In awarding vindicatory damages, Justice Rampersad noted that such was required to reflect the sense of public concern at the breach and to emphasise the importance of the rights that were infringed.
"The breach in this case was not a single, isolated administrative lapse...On the court's findings, the breach was chronic and systemic rather than incidental," he said.
Le Maitre was also represented by Jayanti Lutchmedial, Kent Samlal, Ganesh Saroop, and Natasha Bisram.
The AG's Office was represented by Fyard Hosein, Amaniy Ali and Brent James.
