National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds has defended his decision to seek clarity over Justice Frank Seepersad’s visit to the Port-of-Spain State Prison last week Thursday.
Hinds commented on the issue as he issued a Cabinet-approved statement in Parliament on Wednesday.
Last Thursday, Justice Seepersad criticised Hinds and acting Prisons Commissioner Deopersad Ramoutar for questioning the purpose of his site visit to the death row cells at the Port-of-Spain State Prison.
Hinds claimed that the order issued by the Supreme Court Registrar and Marshal, which signalled Justice Seepersad’s intention to make the visit, did not indicate that he still had to consider possible compensation for a convicted murderer who was left on death row even after the time limit for his execution had elapsed.
He admitted that he asked Ramoutar to ascertain the nature of the visit based on such and also because a journalist was a member of Justice Seepersad’s intended entourage.
“While an official visitor as defined in the Prison Regulations, is entitled to visit the prison pursuant to the Prison Rules, this privilege certainly does not automatically extend to members of an accompanying entourage,” Hinds said.
“Thus, in the circumstances where the intended visitors are not themselves official visitors, the Commissioner of Prisons is duty bound to make the requisite inquiries,” he added.
Hinds referred to a press release that was posted on the Judiciary’s Facebook page last Friday, which stated that prison visits by judges are frequently facilitated by the Commissioner of Prisons.
“However, the nature of each request must be evaluated, so that the necessary safety measures and logistical preparations can be made to ensure these visits are without incident,” he said.
“In this particular case, questions were asked; and for good reason!” he added.
Hinds also denied that his actions constituted judicial interference.
“I certainly recognise, understand, and fully appreciate the mutual respect and comity required to ensure that the separation of powers is strictly observed, while all arms of the State work together co-operatively and in the interest of the State,” Hinds said.
Meanwhile, a High Court Judge has criticised the Judiciary over its press release.
Justice Carol Gobin issued the criticism in an email sent on Tuesday to the Judiciary’s court protocol and information manager Carl Francis and copied to the judges, masters, and registrars of the Supreme Court.
In its press release, the Judiciary stated that while prison visits by Judges in the Civil Division were unusual, Judges and Masters of the Children and Criminal Courts frequently visit prisons.
The release said: “These visits were on the invitation of the Commissioner of Prisons and with the concurrence of the Minister of National Security, who has the authority to make rules for the powers and duties of visiting justices, official visitors, ministers of religion and prisoners aid societies.”
In her correspondence, Justice Gobin, who was the last civil judge to visit the prison before Justice Seepersad, questioned why the Judiciary sought to intervene after her colleague made statements during an open court hearing.
“It is noteworthy that the Honourable minister chose not to respond, perhaps after your release he did not see the need to do so,” Justice Gobin said.
“I find it surprising that instead of using the occasion to remind the executive and by extension the public at large that court orders and directions are to be obeyed, you chose rather to advise the public that it is unusual for civil judges to visit the prisons,” she added.
Justice Gobin sought to explain why the prison visits conducted by Justice Seepersad and her were different from the routine visits mentioned in the Judiciary’s press release.
“A civil judge who has to decide on facts as to prison conditions removed himself from the comfort and security of the courtroom to hold a court hearing at the detention facility. It is not a social visit,” Justice Gobin said.
She also suggested that the Judiciary’s release was based on a false premise.
“The statement that you made as to the power of the Minister of National Security to make rules for visits to prisons by visiting justices and official visitors is erroneous. The Minister has no such power,” Justice Gobin said.
Like her colleague, Justice Gobin pointed to the 1943 Prison Rules which designate judges as ex-officio official visitors who may enter any prison at any time.
Justice Gobin suggested that Francis correct the error by issuing a new release.
“And you may need to advise the judges in the Children and Criminal Divisions that they do not need to ask permission or the concurrence of either the Commissioner of Prisons or the minister to visit the prisons,” she said.
“This is not to suggest that common courtesy should not apply,” she added.
