High Court Judge Frank Seepersad has slammed National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds and acting Prisons Commissioner Deopersad Ramoutar for questioning his decision to conduct a site visit of the death row cells at the Port-of-Spain State Prison.
Justice Seepersad issued the criticism on Thursday, shortly before the eventual visit, which was part of a constitutional lawsuit brought by a convicted murderer who was left on death row even after the time limit for his execution had elapsed.
During a virtual hearing, Justice Seepersad revealed that on Wednesday, Ramoutar sent a letter to the Supreme Court Registrar related to the planned visit.
In the correspondence, which Justice Seepersad read out, Ramoutar said he consulted with Hinds, who questioned whether the on-site visitation was “purposeful any more”.
Ramoutar also questioned whether media personnel were required to accompany Justice Seepersad.
Stating that he was alarmed by the letter, Justice Seepersad questioned whether it was a veiled attempt at Judicial interference.
“If the contents of the letter are accurate and same was issued pursuant to the directions of a member of the Executive, such a circumstance signals that there may be an impending constitutional crisis and/or an overt attempt by a member of the Executive to interfere with Judicial independence and the exercise of Judicial discretion and authority,” Justice Seepersad said.
“It is unfathomable that any politician or member of the Executive would have the temerity to challenge the efficacy of an order issued by the Court, in an unresolved constitutional claim, where the Attorney General is the substantive respondent,” he added.
Referring to Rule 14 of the Prisons Rules, Justice Seepersad noted that Supreme Court Judges are considered ex-officio official visitors, who may visit any prison, at any time and for any reason.
“The Minister of National Security and/or the acting Commissioner of Prisons must also be reminded that they do not exercise any appellate jurisdiction over judges and the inquiry as to whether the site visit is ‘purposeful’ is not only inappropriate but it disregards defined constitutional boundaries and displays a disturbing lack of appreciation as to the limits of their jurisdictional remit,” Justice Seepersad said.
Justice Seepersad noted that the query was based on a false premise as Hinds, through Ramoutar, claimed that he (Justice Seepersad) had resolved the case brought by Ronald Bisnath and only had to calculate the legal costs to be paid by the State.
He pointed out that in fact, he had to determine whether Bisnath’s constitutional rights had been breached and whether he (Bisnath) was entitled to compensation.
He noted that his visit to assess the conditions faced by death row inmates was especially important as the last official prison visit by a High Court Judge took place in 2007.
“The conditions then were alarming and what awaits, 16 years after, is left to be seen,” he said.
After making the statement, attorney Coreen Findley, who led the legal team for the AG’s Office, stated that neither Hinds nor Ramoutar intended to deny him access to the prison and the visit would be facilitated.
However, she noted that members of the media could not be permitted entry due to national security concerns.
Justice Seepersad and several members of his judicial support staff arrived at the prison, on Frederick Street in Port-of-Spain, with a heavily armed police escort around 11 am.
Asked about his experience upon exiting the prison almost two hours later, Justice Seepersad said: “Interesting”.
Bisnath was accused of murdering 13-year-old Parmanand “Boyo” Persad, a former student of the Chaguanas Junior Secondary School, on October 29, 2006.
Persad, who lived near Bisnath at Crown Trace, Enterprise, Chaguanas, was found murdered in a vacant house that was being renovated. His throat had been slit.
Bisnath was arrested shortly after Persad’s body was discovered and allegedly confessed to the crime.
He admitted that he lured Persad to the house and killed him after the teenager repeatedly heckled and harassed him.
Bisnath lost his appeal before the Court of Appeal in 2018 with the United Kingdom-based Privy Council dismissing his legal challenge in August, last year.
In his lawsuit before Justice Seepersad, Bisnath claimed that although the death penalty could not be executed against him as the five-year period for performing the same in the Jamaican case of Pratt and Morgan had expired, his sentence was not officially commuted and he remained on death row.
Bisnath is also relying on a more recent landmark decision from last year, in which the country’s highest appellate court ruled that convicted murderers who benefit from commutation should not receive automatic life sentences but rather defined sentences based on the unique circumstances of their cases.
Bisnath is one of the scores of similarly circumstanced murder convicts, who have filed constitutional lawsuits in a bid to benefit from the legal precedents.
When the case came up for hearing, late last month, Justice Seepersad quashed the death sentence against Bisnath as he noted that the AG’s Office admitted that the death penalty could no longer apply to Bisnath.
“Consequently, it is unjust and unconstitutional for the Applicant, who can no longer be subject to the death penalty, to be housed and treated as if he still is,” Justice Seepersad said.
While Justice Seepersad noted that there may be public criticism over Bisnath’s case and others like it which are due to come up for hearing in the next few months, he noted the court’s intervention was required.
“It must therefore be understood that the court’s intervention is not premised upon sympathy but is grounded on the unassailable stance that constitutional protection must be afforded to all manner of people in accordance with the law and without fear, favour, affection or ill will,” he said.
As part of his decision in the case, Justice Seepersad referred Bisnath’s resentencing to the Supreme Court Registrar for it to be urgently assigned to a colleague in the Criminal Division of the High Court. The resentencing came up for hearing before Justice Carla Brown-Antoine earlier this month and was adjourned to next Wednesday when she is expected to give directions on filing evidence and submissions in Bisnath’s case.
Justice Seepersad is expected to set a date to deliver his judgment on the constitutional aspect of the case once the parties agree on a time line to file their submissions.
Bisnath was represented by Gerald Ramdeen, Wayne Sturge, Dayadai Harripaul, and Nerisa Bala. The AG’s Office was also represented by Nicol Yee Fung and Ryan Grant.
