BY no later than 8 a.m. on Friday a decision will be made by the Appeal Court on if businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife, Genevieve, will be released from prison custody as they continue to challenge the preventive detention orders (PDOs) against them under the state of emergency (SoE).After hearing submissions yesterday from one of the couple’s lead attorneys, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, and Sir James Eadie, KC, on behalf of the State, a three-judge panel announced they needed time to consider the arguments.
For couple: Douglas Mendes, SC.
“We reserve our decision to no later than 8 a.m. on Friday. It may be earlier if we are in a position to give it earlier. You will be notified,” said Justice of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, who chaired the panel which also comprised Justices Mira Dean-Armorer and Joan Charles.The Hadeeds attended the hearing via video link from prison.They are asking the Appeal Court to overturn a June 30 decision by High Court judge Justice Frank Seepersad, who refused to order their release pending the hearing of their judicial review challenge to the detention orders signed by Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander.
For State: James Eadie, KC.
What was the risk?During yesterday’s proceedings, Mendes argued that Alexander had failed to place any affidavit evidence before the court explaining the basis on which he concluded that the couple posed a threat to public safety.All that was known, he said, was that the State claimed to have received “intelligence” that the couple was conspiring to murder Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Attorney General John Jeremie, but there has been no indication of exactly what the intelligence was.“It is important at this stage to determine what material the minister is relying on in his assessment of risk,” Mendes submitted.He noted that last Thursday, when Justice Rajkumar granted the Hadeeds an expedited hearing of their appeal, Alexander was also given the opportunity to file affidavit evidence but had not done so.“The only information before the court is the detention order itself and the particulars that the minister provided which is that intelligence was received from ‘a credible State agency’,” Mendes said.He argued that Alexander could not rely on undisclosed intelligence without first asking the court to withhold it on recognised legal grounds.No such application had been made, he stated.“You cannot say, ‘I cannot disclose the reasons but I am still going to use it against you’,” Mendes submitted.He also criticised what he described as vague assertions in the detention order.“All that is revealed is a conclusion and we do not even know whose conclusion it is and based on what,” he said.Mendes further questioned allegations referred to by the minister that someone should receive “a bullet to the head”, arguing that no context had been provided for the alleged statement.He also challenged the minister’s reliance on the claim that the Hadeeds had the financial means to hire others to carry out unlawful acts. “The minister says they have the financial capability of hiring persons to carry out the act, but that takes the minister nowhere,” Mendes argued. “If that was sufficient grounds, then you would be detaining many other people simply because they have the financial ability of hiring persons.”He maintained that the timing of the detention orders was significant, noting that Jeremie had made public comments in Parliament about preventive detention orders and a State lease involving Blue Waters Products Ltd, of which Dominic Hadeed is founder and executive chairman.According to Mendes, Hadeed had responded by issuing a pre-action protocol letter on June 22, after which arrest warrants were executed in the early hours of June 24.“It (the PDOs) was only issued after the pre-action protocol letter was issued in reference to what the Attorney General stated in Parliament,” Mendes argued.He also referred to a May 5 letter from Jeremie to Hadeed concerning the Blue Waters lease, which stated that the matter had been referred to the Commissioner of Police for investigation.Mendes reminded the court that the SoE regulations required the minister to provide the Preventive Detention Review Tribunal with the grounds on which each detention order was made.“All of this calls for anxious scrutiny by the court,” he submitted.He said a tribunal hearing was held in relation to Dominic Hadeed on Friday, while the case of Genevieve Hadeed and that of her relative, Star Sabga, was to take place yesterday afternoon.He noted there was no prescribed time-frame for the tribunal to issue its decision.Urging the Appeal Court to grant interim relief, Mendes asked that the couple be released under strict conditions.“We are asking you to make an interim order of release on conditions,” he said. “House arrest where they can have their children with them and the children can have their parents.”He argued that such an arrangement would allow Hadeed to continue his medical treatment and reduce the hardship being experienced by the family’s children.“There are third parties who are suffering as well. The children are suffering,” he stated.Judge appliedcorrect legal principlesIn his submissions, Eadie defended Justice Seepersad’s ruling and argued that the judge had applied the correct legal principles.“This has nothing to do with a criminal trial,” Eadie submitted. “It is not a criminal trial, it is not a civil trial. It is a judicial review, and we are still dealing with interim relief. The matter has not even reached the substantive stage,” he said.Eadie rejected the argument that Alexander was required to produce affidavit evidence at this stage of the proceedings, describing that submission as “misplaced”.He maintained that Justice Seepersad “approached these issues entirely correctly” and argued that the legal requirements applicable to an application for interim relief had been properly applied.Appearing along with Eadie for the State were Gerald Ramdeen, Dayadai Harripaul and Ramdath Phillip.In addition to Mendes, the Hadeeds were represented by Senior Counsel Gilbert Peterson, Faris Al-Rawi, Rishi Dass and attorneys Chase Pegus and Carlon Mc Leod.
