THE Office of the Attorney General yesterday issued what it said was a clarification following the “misrepresentation” of correspondence from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the matter involving Dominic Hadeed and Genevieve Hadeed and the State.According to a release from the AG’s office, the State sought leave to appeal to the Privy Council on July 17 after a Court of Appeal ruling.A differently constituted Court of Appeal granted leave and imposed a stay of the earlier decision, resulting in the Hadeeds remaining in prison while the appeal proceeded.The State then filed its Notice of Appeal and sought an expedited hearing in keeping with the Court of Appeal’s order, while attorneys representing the Hadeeds later applied for an urgent hearing on the stay so that they could be released before the Privy Council’s recess from July 31 to September 30.The release quoted correspondence from the Registrar of the Privy Council stating that the court did not wish to hear the appeal “in a rush in the last few days of the term”, and that the issue of the respondents’ continued detention “could be addressed more conveniently by means of an application by the Respondents to lift the stay”.The correspondence also stated that the appeal would be listed in October.The Attorney General’s office said the State’s appeal had been accepted and would be heard during the Privy Council’s new term on a date yet to be fixed.It also stated that the Hadeeds’ application for an expedited hearing during the current term was not accepted and that the court had not denied the State’s appeal.Instead, it said the court indicated that the respondents could apply for interim relief by seeking to have the stay lifted.The release further stated that the Hadeeds’ attorneys subsequently approached the Court of Appeal in Trinidad and Tobago seeking their early release.The AG said reports suggesting that the State had been “defeated” or “denied” by the Privy Council led the Registrar to issue a further clarification to the ­parties.In that correspondence, the Registrar said the court was concerned that the earlier correspondence had been misunderstood and advised that if the respondents applied to lift the stay, the court would issue directions to deal with the application speedily during the following week, with the appellant being given a shortened time to respond.The Office said the State’s appeal would proceed when scheduled by the Privy Council in its new term.It also cautioned members of the legal profession and the media that the intentional misrepresentation of statements, decisions and directives of the court amounted to contempt of court and advised those reporting or commenting on the matter to ensure that information placed in the public domain was accurate.Misinformation concernsLast week (July 23), during a news conference at the Altus Building in Port of Spain, attorney Faris Al-Rawi, SC, raised similar concerns regarding misinformation in the public domain from communications with the Privy Council in the appeal involving Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed.This conference took place hours after Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander revoked the preventive detention orders that had been placed on the couple.Al-Rawi at the time said his legal team had been pursuing a hearing before the Privy ­Council and had already filed what he described as “compelling, robust grounds” in support of the Court of Appeal’s decision ordering the immediate release of their clients.He said, following communications between the attorneys and the Registrar of the Privy Council, the parties were informed that the Privy Council wished to carefully consider the State’s appeal and would do so in October.However, Al-Rawi said the Registrar also informed the respondents that if they wished to make a separate application to lift the stay granted by the second constitution of the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council would entertain such an application.He added that the Registrar took note of a local media report which quoted excerpts attributed to the Privy Council and wrote to the parties to clarify that the court had been misquoted.Al-Rawi said the excerpts did not come from his legal team and maintained that, apart from interventions outside the Golden Grove Prison, court appearances and news conferences, he had ­refrained from commenting on the matter because it remained before the courts.He said the Registrar specifically stated that if the ­respondents made an application to lift the stay, the Privy Council would issue directions to ensure that it was dealt with speedily on the ­papers during the following week.According to Al-Rawi, the State would also be given a shortened period within which to respond.“There was never a position where Mr and Mrs Hadeed’s matter was not going to be entertained by the Privy Council and we of course readied ourselves and took every step possible, including the filing of our grounds to demonstrate the propriety of our submissions,” he said.Al-Rawi said the developments confirmed that the Privy Council remained prepared to consider any application made by the respondents while separately determining the State’s appeal.