Hadeeds appeal refusal of release from detention

DEREK ACHONG

Se­nior Re­porter

Busi­ness­man Do­minic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve have ap­pealed High Court Judge Frank Seep­er­sad’s re­fusal to or­der their re­lease from de­ten­tion over an al­leged plot to kill key Gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials.

In an ap­peal filed ear­li­er to­day, lawyers rep­re­sent­ing the cou­ple, led by Se­nior Coun­sel Dou­glas Mendes, raised more than a dozen grounds of ap­peal, claim­ing Jus­tice Seep­er­sad made sev­er­al er­rors in re­fus­ing their re­lease from Pre­ven­tive De­ten­tion Or­ders (PDOs) last week.

They claimed Jus­tice Seep­er­sad was wrong to rule that they could be com­pen­sat­ed by the State if they even­tu­al­ly suc­ceed in their sub­stan­tive law­suit, in which they al­lege they were tar­get­ed by the Gov­ern­ment based on their eth­nic­i­ty and an on­go­ing le­gal dis­pute over the ter­mi­na­tion of leas­es for State land.

"The con­tin­u­ing de­pri­va­tion of lib­er­ty is the par­a­digm of ir­repara­ble harm. Lib­er­ty tak­en can­not af­ter­wards be re­stored. The breach, hav­ing oc­curred, can­not ever be un­done," they said.

They al­so con­tend­ed that Jus­tice Seep­er­sad wrong­ly re­quired the cou­ple to prove that their con­tin­ued de­ten­tion was il­le­gal. They claimed the Trinidad and To­ba­go Po­lice Ser­vice (TTPS) and the State were in­stead re­quired to jus­ti­fy the law­ful­ness of their de­ten­tion.

"The mis­al­lo­ca­tion of the bur­den caused the Learned Judge to over­state the Re­spon­dents' prospects and to un­der­state the Ap­pel­lants', there­by vi­ti­at­ing the as­sess­ment up­on which the re­fusal of in­ter­im re­lief was found­ed," they said.

The cou­ple al­so claimed that Jus­tice Seep­er­sad failed to prop­er­ly con­sid­er their al­le­ga­tions of dis­crim­i­na­tion.

"The Learned Judge erred in law, in his pro­vi­sion­al as­sess­ment of the mer­its, by un­du­ly de­fer­ring to the Min­is­ter, in cir­cum­stances where the Ap­pel­lants had ad­duced cred­i­ble and large­ly un­chal­lenged ev­i­dence that demon­strat­ed that pri­ma fa­cie the ar­rests, de­ten­tions, and PDOs were pro­cured for an im­prop­er pur­pose and in bad faith," they said.

They fur­ther claimed that Jus­tice Seep­er­sad failed to con­sid­er ev­i­dence they pre­sent­ed re­gard­ing the con­di­tions of their de­ten­tion at the Gold­en Grove State Prison in Arou­ca.

The cou­ple’s lawyers said the ap­peal is ur­gent and should be heard on an ex­pe­dit­ed ba­sis be­fore Ju­ly 27.

The Hadeeds and a 69-year-old rel­a­tive, Star Sab­ga, were de­tained two weeks ago as po­lice of­fi­cers ex­e­cut­ed search war­rants at their homes and of­fices.

The war­rants in­di­cat­ed that they were be­ing in­ves­ti­gat­ed for con­spir­a­cy to com­mit mur­der.

The PDOs, which will re­main in ef­fect while the State of Emer­gency re­mains in place un­til mid-Sep­tem­ber, stat­ed that they were be­ing de­tained over an al­leged plot to mur­der Gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials and MPs.

The probe al­leged­ly stemmed from in­tel­li­gence gath­ered by a na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty or­gan­i­sa­tion that was not iden­ti­fied in the PDOs.

Jus­tice Seep­er­sad re­fused their in­ter­im re­lease but grant­ed them leave to pur­sue a sub­stan­tive case.

"It is es­sen­tial to dis­tin­guish that even if their ar­rests and de­ten­tions were in­valid, such does not im­pact the de­ci­sion of the min­is­ter to is­sue the PDOs," he said.

Al­though he ac­knowl­edged the con­di­tions the cou­ple had to en­dure and con­tin­ue to en­dure in prison, Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said they could be com­pen­sat­ed through dam­ages if they are even­tu­al­ly suc­cess­ful in their le­gal chal­lenge.

"While the court ap­pre­ci­ates the dis­tress from de­ten­tion, it does hold the view that there may be greater harm if they are re­leased and the in­tel­li­gence up­on which the po­lice and min­is­ter act­ed proves to be true," Jus­tice Seep­er­sad said.