THE legal battle over the continued detention of businessmen Dominic Hadeed and his wife, Genevieve, has now moved to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.The State has formally filed its appeal against last week’s landmark Court of Appeal ruling that ordered the couple’s release from prison.Notice of the appeal was published yesterday on the Privy Council’s website.The appellants are the Commissioner of Police, the Office of the Attorney General, the Minister of Homeland Security and PC Eldon Calliste.Although the appeal has now been lodged, up to yesterday evening no date had been fixed for the hearing.However, it is expected that the matter will be heard and determined before the end of the month.The appeal challenges the July 14 judgment of Justices of Appeal Peter Rajkumar, Mira Dean-Armorer and Joan Charles, who ruled that the Hadeeds had established an arguable case that the Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) issued against them were legally deficient.The panel had directed that the couple be released from prison and instead placed under strict house arrest at their Bayshore, Westmoorings home, subject to stringent conditions.However, the Hadeeds remained in custody after the State successfully obtained an interim stay of that order the same evening by another panel comprising Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, Mark Mohammed and Ricky Rahim.The panel had also granted the State permission to file their appeal at the apex court after the lawyers for the Hadeeds did not challenge the leave application.Last Friday night, the panel unanimously refused to discharge the interim stay, and the couple remained in prison pending the Privy Council proceedings.In delivering that ruling, the panel said it had to balance the competing consequences of either releasing the Hadeeds or maintaining their detention. The judges concluded that if the couple were released and the allegations of an assassination conspiracy ultimately proved to be true, the prejudice to the public interest would outweigh the prejudice arising from their continued detention for what was expected to be a relatively short period while the Privy Council considers the appeal.‘What assassination plot?’ During that hearing, senior counsel Douglas Mendes, appearing for the Hadeeds, argued that fresh affidavit evidence filed by Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander exposed the weakness of the State’s case rather than strengthening it.Mendes repeatedly questioned “what assassination plot?” as he argued that the telephone communications relied upon by the State involved two individuals whose identities and circumstances undermined the allegation of a conspiracy to assassinate Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Attorney General John Jeremie and other senior Government officials.He told the court that one of the men was an elderly and respected Mayaro resident involved in community projects, while the other was a licensed security officer employed at the Hadeeds’ residence whose telephone contact with Genevieve Hadeed arose after he had a flat tyre while transporting children.Mendes also relied on medical evidence concerning Dominic Hadeed’s deteriorating health, telling the court a specialist doctor had visited and assessed him in prison and warned that prolonged detention could result in irreversible complications.Appearing for the State, King’s Counsel Sir James Eadie argued that the July 14 judgment was fundamentally flawed and that preserving the stay was necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the State’s appeal. He also contended that the house arrest conditions ordered by the original Court of Appeal panel would not adequately address the alleged security concerns.The Hadeeds have been detained under PDOs since June 24.Neither has been charged with any criminal offence.