Senior Reporter
After spending almost three weeks in prison while being probed over an alleged plot to assassinate Government officials, businessman Dominic Hadeed and his wife Genevieve have been ordered released from prison and placed under house arrest.
However, a late-night appeal put a hold on the decision, as another appellate panel agreed to give the State’s lawyers a chance to challenge the ruling at the United Kingdom-based Privy Council.
Appellate Judges Peter Rajkumar, Mira Dean-Armorer and Joan Charles made the initial order yesterday afternoon, as they upheld the couple’s appeal challenging a decision by High Court Judge Frank Seepersad to refuse their interim release last week.
In their judgment yesterday, the appeal panel said Justice Seepersad could not be faulted for giving deference to national security concerns raised by the State. However, they found that he failed to properly consider that Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander provided insufficient grounds to warrant their detention under Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs) for the remainder of the State of Emergency (SoE), which ends in mid-September.
“A conspiracy to kill senior members of government requires particulars of that conspiracy in order to justify preventive detention. It is not sufficient to indicate that the first appellant (Hadeed) has the means to carry out such a conspiracy if the conspiracy itself has not been identified,” the judges said.
“Having the means to carry out a conspiracy or plan is not sufficient grounds for a preventive detention order,” they added.
The panel also took issue with the fact that Alexander relied on intelligence reports from an unnamed national security agency in the PDOs.
“Vague assertions, therefore, of intelligence without explaining how that intelligence reflected the ongoing conspiracy and the development of plans, arguably did not satisfy the statutory precondition for the exercise of the power to issue the PDOs,” they said.
“Sufficient justification was required to demonstrate compliance with the statutory preconditions for the exercise of PDOs and to permit detained persons to at least know the reason for that extreme and draconian exercise of Executive power,” they added.
The panel also rejected claims that the couple had an alternate remedy by challenging their PDOs before the SoE Review Tribunal.
The judges pointed out that the tribunal can only make recommendations, which are not binding on the minister.
Noting that Alexander had rejected previous recommendations by the tribunal in relation to other detainees, the panel said: “The existence of the tribunal therefore does not constitute an adequately effective alternative remedy.”
The judges also took issue with Justice Seepersad’s ruling that the couple could be financially compensated if they are eventually successful in their substantive legal challenge.
“The uncompensable loss to the appellants would include their loss of liberty, their loss of family life, the inability of the first appellant to continue treating and monitoring hereditary and chronic conditions, as well as monitoring his health for any occurrence of malignancy,” they said.
“It is also indisputable that both the appellants have been separated from their children and that those children have been deprived of both their parents.”
The judges found that there was a low risk of irreparable harm if they are released with strict conditions, as the police were free to continue their probe and charge them if they gathered sufficient evidence.
“The concerns of the respondents can be addressed by release upon supervision and if or when evidence is uncovered to support matters alleged in the PDOs, nothing prevents charges being laid,” they said.
Under the conditions of their release, the couple will be confined to their home at Bayshore in Westmoorings.
They were ordered to surrender their passports, firearms and communication devices, although such items were seized by the police when they were arrested three weeks ago.
They were also prevented from accepting visitors, other than their lawyers and approved medical professionals, unless approved by Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro.
The couple’s three children, ages 17, 15 and 12, will have to seek permission to visit them, as they agreed to move in with their grandparents while the house arrest order remains in effect.
The police were also given the power to enter their home to conduct inspections to ensure compliance with the orders.
In the event of a breach, their conditional release would be revoked and they would be returned to prison.
After the panel rendered its decision, attorney Gerald Ramdeen made an oral application for a stay to give the State time to pursue a final appeal.
Ramdeen also claimed that the TTPS needed time to ensure that the court’s order was effectively enforced.
“We can’t expect them to return to their home unsupervised and expect them to obey the orders. The premises have to be searched; we cannot just take their word for it,” Ramdeen said.
“I am not trying to be difficult. I just want to give effect to the orders,” he added.
Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who led the couple’s legal team, said there was no reason for a stay, as the couple would be under supervision. He claimed that Ramdeen was free to appeal to the Privy Council and seek an urgent hearing. He also said that his clients would help facilitate the police.
“There is a guard booth at the premises that the police can take over if they wish to make sure no one comes and goes without permission,” Mendes said.
The appeal panel declined, as they noted that the couple’s conditional release had no bearing on the appeal or the continuing probe into the allegations.
“There are no serious grounds that if a stay is not granted, the application (for the appeal) would be rendered nugatory,” Dean-Armorer said.
Concern over Dominic’s deteriorating health
In a brief interview outside the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain after the ruling, the Hadeeds’ other lawyer, Faris Al-Rawi, said he was still not pleased with the favourable outcome.
“I could never be pleased in a situation like this that is still ongoing. When it’s all done, then we’ll have time to reflect,” Al-Rawi said.
He said he was especially concerned over his client’s well-being after he endured three weeks in harsh prison conditions.
“In particular, Mr Hadeed’s medical condition has been of great concern. He has received not an ounce of medical care while in the State’s custody. We fear that his ability to even walk may be compromised and they have known all of this,” Al-Rawi said.
He said he and his colleagues expect more legal challenges following the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
He noted that they were still pursuing similar legal action over the detention of the couple’s relative, Star Sabga, who was detained alongside them.
“She makes cheese for a living. She rents her accommodation, she has no money to her name, she doesn’t own her apartment, she has been incarcerated as well. So, her matter is going on,” Al-Rawi said.
The Hadeeds are also being represented by Gilbert Peterson, SC, Rishi Dass, SC, Chase Pegus and Carlon Mc Leod.
The AG’s Office is also being represented by Sir James Eadie, KC, Robert Strang and Dayadai Harripaul.
