HIGHEST priority should be given to the judicial review and constitutional challenge brought by businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve over the issuance of preventive detention orders (PDOs) against them, the Appeal Court has ruled.The order by the court for an expedited hearing of the High Court proceedings came after attorney Gerald Ramdeen, appearing for the State, indicated to Justices of Appeal Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell and Joan Charles that while he was not consenting to the expediting of the matter, he was also not objecting to it.
High Court Justice:Vigel Paul
The court hearing took place yesterday morning before Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander issued a media release announcing he had taken the decision to revoke the PDOs.During the hearing, Ramdeen said the State was not objecting to the High Court matter being fast-tracked based on the Hadeeds’ continued detention at the time and fresh evidence regarding Dominic Hadeed’s deteriorating medical condition.“I think there is more utility in proceeding with the matter downstairs (the High Court) as opposed to proceeding with the procedural appeal,” said Ramdeen.This he said, would be a time-saver.Noting their observation of the apparent discomfort of Dominic Hadeed during the virtual hearing, the Justices commended Ramdeen for the position adopted by the State.Although he maintained that High Court Justice Vigel Paul had not erred when he initially declined to fast-track the matter, Ramdeen told the court he did not object to the claim now being treated as urgent in light of the fresh medical evidence that was not previously before the judge.Attorneys for the Hadeeds had filed an application for an urgent procedural appeal against the decision of Justice Paul, who, on July 17, adjourned the judicial review and constitutional claim to mid-September for directions.After hearing submissions from Ramdeen and senior counsel Rishi Dass on behalf of the Hadeeds, the Appeal Court declared that “the matters are to be expedited by accelerated and urgent progression of directions”.Yesterday’s hearing came one week after a three-judge panel comprising Justices Peter Rajkumar, Mira Dean-Armorer and Joan Charles directed that the couple be released from prison custody and instead placed under house arrest at their Bayshore, Westmoorings, home under stringent conditions.While this was so, the Hadeeds remained in custody at the Golden Grove Prison in Arouca, given that just a few hours after the initial ruling, another panel comprising Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, Mark Mohammed and Ricky Rahim granted an interim stay of the order.The following day, the panel headed by the Chief Justice extended the stay, pending the filing and determination of the State’s appeal against the initial Appeal Court ruling at the London-based Privy Council.It was initially expected that the final appeal would have been heard before the close of the law term at the end of this month; however, attorneys in the matter were yesterday notified by the apex court that the appeal could be heard no earlier than October.The effect of this was that the Hadeeds would have had to remain in prison custody until at least September 17, when the state of emergency (SoE) comes to an end, unless another application asking for a lifting of the stay was filed and granted by the Appeal Court or the PDOs revoked.Matters proceed todayAlso detained under a PDO was Star Sabga, a 70-year-old relative of the Hadeeds who remains in prison custody.Her claim, together with that of the Hadeeds, is to be recalled before Justice Paul today.While the PDOs against the Hadeeds have been revoked, the matters are to still proceed unless withdrawn by the couple.Also, during yesterday’s hearing, Ramdeen informed the Justices that the State had written to attorney Faris Al-Rawi, SC, on Wednesday morning indicating to him that arrangements were being made to have a doctor visit the Golden Grove prison and examine Dominic Hadeed to verify what was stated in his medical report.However, Ramdeen said consent was not given by the Hadeeds’ legal team since they were of the opinion the doctor was not qualified in the particular area of medicine to properly assess their client.Al-Rawi confirmed to the court that Ramdeen had indeed held correspondence with him.He added, however, that since the Appeal Court ordered last Friday that the State allow Hadeed to receive medical treatment by his doctors, no such treatment had taken place.In fact, Al-Rawi said since being detained, Hadeed had received no medical treatment.The judges noted that the panel headed by the Chief Justice had given an order that the doctors be allowed to visit Hadeed and carry out treatment and if this was being refused, it could constitute contempt of court.Ramdeen in response submitted that since the court made the order, he had been waiting to be contacted by Hadeed’s attorneys in terms of them wanting their client to receive the necessary treatment, but no such contact had been made.He said the State was always willing to facilitate any requests by the attorneys to have Hadeed receive the necessary medical care.Appearing along with Ramdeen was attorney Dayadai Harripaul, while Senior Counsel Gilbert Peterson, Douglas Mendes along with attorneys Jerome Rajkumar, Chase Pegus, and Carlon McLeod appeared with Dass and Al-Rawi on behalf of the Hadeeds.
