A case of mistaken identity, which led to a 57-year-old man from Guyana being wrongfully detained for four months for allegedly absconding from an over 30-year-old robbery case, is now set to cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in compensation.
Azaad Ali, who resides in Sangre Grande, signalled his intention to sue the State moments after he was set free by High Court Judge Frank Seepersad at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain yesterday afternoon.
In a brief interview after he was released, an emotional Ali said: “I want to thank God for being with me. It was a terrible experience to be in prison for something that I did not do.”
Ali, who openly wept several times as Seepersad delivered his judgment, criticised the police for their handling of the case.
“There were many aspects overlooked by the police in the first instance. I personally think he was very immature in his approach in this matter by just looking at someone’s name, which was not even corresponding,” he said.
According to the evidence presented in his habeas corpus writ before Seepersad, Ali was detained on a bench warrant over his alleged non-appearance in the trial of 1988 robbery case, when he accessed bail for an unrelated sexual offence in February.
Although he denied any knowledge of the protracted case, Ali was remanded into custody as the warrant did not give the option of bail.
In his oral judgment, Seepersad apologised to Ali on behalf of the State as he noted that he discovered several discrepancies in the case, which led to Ali’s wrongful detention.
Firstly, Seepersad noted that the documents related to the robbery case stated that “Azard Ali” and not “Azaad Ali” was accused of robbing a man of $400 in 1988.
“In a society such as ours, the police should exercise extreme caution when apprehending a person on the basis of a name,” Seepersad said as he suggested that the arresting officer should have done a better investigation.
He also stated that the documents also did not bear Ali’s signature but that of a person, who was “barely literate”.
Seepersad noted that Ali’s criminal record tracing, obtained using his fingerprints, had other cases against him from 1996 but did not mention the 1988 matter.
“There was no rational basis for concluding that this was the same person,” Seepersad said as he noted that the police officer, who investigated the robbery case, also could not identify the man he charged, over 31 years ago.
Seepersad pointed to the fact that Ali was able to provide evidence from Guyanese immigration officials, who revealed that he was only issued with travel documents in September 1989, months after he was alleged to have committed the robbery.
He also criticised police, prison authorities and prosecutors as he noted that the issue of Ali’s detention was only considered after Ali brought a series of legal challenges that culminated in the one before him. Seepersad noted that other legal challenges were dismissed as the details of the case, Ali was being accused of, were not available at the time.
“Surely, the rights of citizens cannot be treated in such a dismissive manner,” Seepersad said.
Although Ali could not receive compensation in the lawsuit challenging his detention, Seepersad still advised him to consider his options.
As part of his decision, Seepersad advised that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should consider discontinuing the protracted case as the victim, who identified his attacker, died while waiting to testify.
As he mulls suing the state, Ali also lamented the conditions he endured while on remand in prison.
Ali was represented by Renee Joseph and Keisha Peters.