Senior Reporter
elizabeth.gonzales@guardian.co.tt
The administration of justice in any jurisdiction is supposed to be fair, impartial and accessible.
But for years, delays have raised a harder question: if justice comes too late, who is the system really serving?
In part two of this three-part series, Guardian Media Investigations Desk examines how the justice system is working in practice, from delay inside the courts to the pressure it creates outside them, and what that means for the people who administer it and for those caught inside it.
Before a judge or jury could decide if a prisoner was guilty or innocent, they were dead.
Guardian Media Investigations Desk found at least 24 identifiable prisoners, along with one who went unnamed, who died in prison or state custody between 2001 and 2025 while on remand, awaiting trial, or before their criminal matters were concluded.
Their deaths are scattered across old news reports, court records, and human rights documents, but no public official list showing how many prisoners died waiting for justice could be found.
Those who died included prisoners accused of murder, attempted murder, kidnapping and other offences. Some died after an illness. Some were found hanging. Some died after violence. Some died after alleged beatings.
What they have in common is simple: their matters were not finished when they died.
The deaths happened inside a system that had already been warned for years about long waits, overcrowding, missed court dates and large numbers of people being kept on remand.
A 2023 Joint Select Committee report on national security said remanded prisoners were spending an average of six to eight years awaiting trial. The World Prison Brief recorded Trinidad and Tobago’s prison population at 3,802 in April 2021 and said remand prisoners made up 59.7 per cent of the prison population in 2018.
The US State Department’s 2024 human rights report said most detainees’ trials began seven to ten years after arrest, with some waiting even longer in pre-trial detention.
A 2020 academic paper on T&T’s remand system described the situation as “punishment without trial.”
It said the practice was “akin to the criminalisation of the presumption of innocence,” with some prisoners spending ten to 20 years on remand.
The Ombudsman’s reports also showed that remand prisoners had been complaining for years.
One report recorded complaints from prisoners on remand who said they were not being taken to court on the dates fixed for their matters. Another report raised inadequate prison transport as a concern because it affected the movement of remand prisoners to court.
In 2022, medical reports before the court showed murder accused Ogee Tempro had attempted suicide twice after spending about 20 years on remand while waiting for his case to end. His attorney, Sophia Chote SC, raised the suicide attempts during a bail application, linking them to his lengthy incarceration.
Section 90(3)(c) of the Constitution gives the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) the power “to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings.”
As a result, if an accused person dies before the case is completed, the criminal matter against that person cannot continue, affecting the flow of justice.
Prisoners who died before their matters were completed (2001–2025)
2001–2008
Anton Cooper (27) died in 2001 at Golden Grove Remand Centre less than 24 hours after detention, with beating suspected. In 2004, Ignatius Owen (47) died at Golden Grove with multiple blunt traumatic injuries, while Kern Phillips was fatally stabbed after an argument and later died at Arima Medical Facility. In 2008, Sunil Ali (28), a murder accused on suicide watch, was found hanging.
2011–2017
Raphael Williams died in 2011 before trial, with sickle-cell complications reported. In 2013, Placid Aimard Lima (47) died two days after remand, with a court later finding he had been beaten by guards.
In 2014, multiple deaths were recorded: Steven Abdool (23), Kevin Hospedales (24), Kofi Cropper, and Ramkumar “Uncle Bopeep” Jaisarie (75).
Further deaths followed in 2016, including Wayne Clement, who collapsed in custody, and a prisoner known as “Parks”, who was killed in a cell. Michael George (29) died in 2017 at the ERF cell, with blood clots reported.
2019–2021
Pedro Delaberro was found hanging in 2019 at the Arouca remand facility. In 2020, Matthew Woods and Emo James both died while in custody, with James reported ill during prison protests after a prolonged wait for trial. In 2021, Timothy Sonny died in Maximum Security Prison after chest pain and vomiting, with COVID cited.
2023–2025
Emmanuel Joseph (22) died in 2023 with blunt-force injuries reported. In 2024, Shurland “Big Mesh” Brown (26) died after a prison brawl, while Alana Mathura (63) died under supervision at EWMSC.
In 2025, deaths included Sewak Jagroo (58), Akino Purcell, Dhanraj “Lallee” Seukumar (33), who died by suicide at Arouca Maximum Security Prison, Kelvin Wallace (35), who was found dead in Port of Spain Prison, and one unnamed inmate who was stabbed during a reported gang fight.
Death in custody - A pathologist’s view
A forensic pathologist—who has done over 2000 autopsies— spoke to Guardian Media Investigations Desk on the condition of anonymity, said most prison deaths she handled were from natural causes, including illness.
“Basically, where I was trained, that is called a death in custody,” the pathologist said. “That person was under the care of the State. And any death in custody is supposed to have a forensic autopsy, any death in custody.”
“Most that I did were natural deaths…It have (sic) people in there a while and they develop an illness while they’re there. Cancer for one.”
There were also deaths linked to self-harm and violence among the prison population.
“I know a couple of them died by suicide…It may have had one or two where prisoners fight, yeah, fighting between two prisoners and one gets stabbed.”
The pathologist said prisoner deaths should also come with records, including medical or prison information.
“And when they come to forensic, they would bring… in most instances, now and again, you might have to ask a few questions.”
Prisoners may have chronic conditions, just like people outside prison.
When a prisoner’s body is brought for autopsy, it is not handled like an ordinary case after the examination is completed.
“Remember, the prisoner is called a ward of the State…When we are finished with a body, in an ordinary forensic autopsy, it goes to the relatives but the thing with a prisoner is that goes back to the State.”
The pathologist said that means the body remains under State control before relatives are allowed to receive it.
Asked about claims that some deaths may not become public, the pathologist could only speak to the cases that reached forensic examination.
The pathologist said the standard remains the same. “All deaths in custody, child, adult, should have a forensic autopsy done.”
Warnings prevalent
The issue of long wait time in remand is familiar.
In 2020, the Human Rights Clinic at the University of the West Indies filed a constitutional claim on behalf of seven remand prisoners who were on remand awaiting trial for murder. Two had been waiting 17 and 18 years for their trials to begin. Three had been waiting 14 years. Two had been waiting six and seven years.
Those were not deaths. But they showed the same problem: people waiting years before the State’s case against them was heard.
Media reports also showed people being granted bail after 12 years on remand, two accused getting bail after 20 years behind bars while awaiting trial, and one murder accused waiting more than 14 years for trial to begin.
The Ombudsman had also warned about the delay in custody.
In an earlier annual report, the Ombudsman said: “Many of these prisoners would have served their ‘sentences’ by the time their matters are heard before the Court of Appeal.”
The report added: “It is evident that if this state of affairs continues, prisoners in custody awaiting the hearing of their appeals will continue to complain about the injustice and unfair treatment accorded to them.”
The complaints did not stop there.
The Ombudsman later recorded complaints from prisoners on remand who said no dates had been fixed for trial, or that they were not being taken to court when dates were fixed.
What court records show
The deaths of remand prisoners are separate from another set of records obtained by Guardian Media Investigations Desk on delayed judgments.
But the two issues meet at one point: delay.
In a Freedom of Information request, Guardian Media Investigations Desk asked the Judiciary for records used to monitor reserved judgments and delivery timelines in the High Court and Court of Appeal for matters reserved beyond 90 days, from January 1, 2025, to January 31, 2026.
The request also sought minutes, briefing notes or internal correspondence from meetings discussing backlog, delay mitigation strategies and performance expectations relating to outstanding judgments.
The Judiciary’s response said: “There is no record of any internal reports, spreadsheets, dashboards, case tracking records or data used by the Judiciary to monitor reserved judgments and delivery timelines for judgments outstanding beyond 90 days in the High Court and Court of Appeal for the period January 1, 2025, to January 31, 2026.”
It also stated: “There is no record of minutes, briefing notes or internal correspondence from meetings discussing backlog, delay mitigation strategies or performance expectations relating to outstanding judgments.”
That FOIA response dealt with reserved judgments, not deaths in custody.
But it forms part of the wider issue being examined in this series: how delay is tracked and publicly accounted for.
Records obtained by Guardian Media Investigations showed at least 486 reserved judgments outstanding across the Court of Appeal and three High Court divisions by the end of January 2026.
The High Court Civil Division had 322 reserved judgments in judges’ dockets, with 178 outstanding for over six months.
The Family and Children Division had 65 reserved judgments, with 36 outstanding for more than six months.
The Criminal Division had 17 reserved judgments, with none outstanding over six months.
The records also showed the Court of Appeal backlog increased within a single month.
As of December 31, 2025, the Court of Appeal had 72 reserved judgments outstanding.
By January 31, 2026, that number had risen to 82.
Of those 82 matters, 61 were older than 90 days, 58 older than 120 days, 53 older than 180 days and 27 older than one year.
Reserved judgments are not the same as remand cases. A reserved judgment means the hearing has ended, but the written decision has not yet been delivered.
Civil appeals dominate the backlog.
Of the 82 reserved judgments outstanding at the end of January, 68 were civil matters, compared with 10 criminal appeals, two family matters and two magisterial appeals.
Separate Judiciary records showed significant numbers of reserved judgments also exist in the High Court. In January 2026, the High Court’s Civil Division had 322 reserved judgments in judges’ dockets.
Of those, 178 were older than six months.
The Family and Children Division listed 65 reserved judgments, including 36 older than six months, while the Criminal Division had 17 reserved judgments, none older than six months.
Chief Justice ordered tracking
The Judiciary’s own documents showed senior judicial officers knew delayed judgments needed monitoring.
In a September 10, 2025 letter to judges, then chief justice Ivor Archie wrote that the Judiciary was responding to the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago on outstanding judgments.
He listed outstanding judgments as follows: Court of Appeal, 28; Civil Division, 485; Criminal Division, three; and Family Court Sub-Division, 63.
In that letter, he wrote: “Judgments should generally be delivered within three months of the conclusion of the trial or hearing.”
He added that six months should be treated as the outer limit, unless there was a good reason for delay.
Those reports were to be submitted monthly.
He also wrote: “As part of our collective accountability, these are reports that you should maintain on a regular basis to ensure that you are tracking the progress of matters.”
The letter said judges’ teams would be required to provide monthly reports to management. It also said the reports should include the date judgment was reserved, the expected date of delivery, the reason for delay and the expected timeline for delivery.
New monitoring system
Less than four months later, newly appointed Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh introduced a formal monitoring system.
In an email dated January 2, 2026, Boodoosingh told High Court judges and masters there was a need for “self-monitoring and monitoring.”
Attached to the email was a monthly reporting form.
The form requires judicial officers to report the number of reserved judgments in their docket and how many are older than six months, along with information on sitting days and matters completed.
However, the Judiciary stated that no internal monitoring records were identified for the period requested in its FOIA response.
Requested correspondence between the Judiciary and the Attorney General was withheld under Section 27 of the Freedom of Information.
Concerns about delays and case management pressures in the courts have appeared repeatedly in the Judiciary’s annual reports.
The 2014–2015 Judiciary Annual Report showed the Court of Appeal received 626 appeals but disposed of 516, giving a clearance ratio of 0.82, meaning fewer cases were being resolved than were being filed.
Later reports showed the system carrying large numbers of ageing cases.
The 2018–2019 Judiciary Annual Report recorded 4,279 pending matters at the Court of Appeal.
The report said the average age of matters older than four years was 15.2 years, though it warned that some older matters might be inactive or awaiting administrative closure.
The 2019–2020 annual report recorded 4,579 pending appeals.
The most recent records showed that even as monitoring measures are now being introduced, hundreds of judgments remain outstanding across the system.
They also showed that in the Court of Appeal, the number of reserved judgments increased between December and January, even after two internal directives from a former and sitting Chief Justice.
Court of Appeal backlog remains high (2019–2021)
The Judiciary’s annual reports for 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 show thousands of pending matters in Trinidad and Tobago’s Court of Appeal, with older cases forming a significant portion of the workload.
Total pending matters
The Court of Appeal recorded a decline in overall pending matters over the period:
2019–2020: 4,579 pending matters
2020–2021: 3,902 pending matters
The 2020–2021 annual report recorded 3,902 pending appeals, with older matters continuing to dominate the caseload.
