Lawyer withdraws habeas corpus proceedings for Mingo on advice from court
On advice from the court, lawyer Darren Wade yesterday withdrew the habeas corpus application he filed at the High Court on behalf of his client— embattled District Four Returning Officer ( RO) Clairmont Mingo, who is currently the subject of a police probe into alleged electoral fraud.
In a separate application later yesterday, the court granted the police a oneday extension for Mingo to remain in custody.
In his application seeking immediate release from custody, the sixty- nineyear-old Mingo who was arrested at his Little Abary, Mahaicony home on Tuesday had contended that the lawmen had no basis for detaining him and it was unlawful as he had committed no act of fraud or conspiracy.
When the matter came up for hearing yesterday morning before Justice of Appeal, Rishi Persaud, a vociferous Wade began by explaining that the relationship between himself and the police had improved, citing that he was being allowed to see his client—a state of affairs which he said did not previously exist.
Wade then continued by informing the court that if the police were willing to continue on that path, then his pursuit of the matter in the few hours to follow would only be an academic exercise by the court.
At the virtual Zoom hearing he said that he had “no quarrels” any longer at that time, once the police would give an undertaking to continue on what he called “that trajectory.”
“I am getting to see my client,” he said, adding that given constitutional implications, his client ought to have been released in “short time.”
Wade’s submissions were however met with fierce objections from Attorney General ( AG) Anil Nandlall who said that he (Wade) could not be expected to invoke the special jurisdiction of the court through habeas corpus proceedings and then come to report to the court of an improved relationship with the police.
Citing a number of case law authorities and legal principles, Nandlall said that if Wade felt that he was being denied access to see his client, he needed to approach the court via different procedures which cater for the breach of such specific constitutional rights, and not through the filing of habeas corpus proceedings.
Describing Wade’s application as being “totally misconceived,” the AG said it was void from the very beginning and ought to be dismissed with costs.
Nandlall argued that considerable time would have been invested and wasted in his Chambers’ preparation to rebut the case and so Wade could not merely declare that any pronouncement on the matter by the court would be for academic purposes.
Nandlall said that in fact, there was judicial precedent from the apex court— the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) that pure academic enquiry into any litigation is not to be entertained or countenanced by courts.
In a bit of a heated exchange, however, Wade fired back, stating firmly that he had no intention of withdrawing his client’s application and sought to clarify that when he described that any pronouncement would thereafter bear only academic significance, he was referring directly to certain allegations cited in the application against the police.
“We are still of the position that the detention is unlawful,” he said, as he stood firmly to the position that he would not be withdrawing the application.
Advancing that Wade was confusing concepts, however, Nandlall sought to point out that detention in itself is not ipso facto unlawful, as it is provided for by law, and he pointed to Article 139 (4) of the Constitution which so provides.
He then went on to explain that “reasonable suspicion” of having committed an offence is a ground on which the police can arrest a person. On this point he said that the police up to that point could not be regarded as having acted unlawfully.
He then continued by outlining that habeas corpus proceedings can be mounted to challenge a detention beyond the constitutionally stipulated 72 hours at which point concerns of unlawful detention could be raised.
The AG was swift to point out that up to the point of the hearing, that period for Mingo’s detention had not yet expired—a fact Wade himself conceded.
Wade had said that he made a mistake by citing the provisions of Article 144 (Provisions to secure protection of law) in the application as opposed to Article 139 (Protection of right to personal liberty) referenced by Nandlall.
He then attempted to seek to make an amendment which was denied by the judge who pointed out that that was too fundamental a defect to the entire application and that a mere amendment could not provide a remedy.
Nandlall had pointed out that nowhere in his pleadings did Wade reference Article 139, yet he wanted to rely on it, pointing out that he relied on Article 144 instead.
Justice Persaud at that point sought to ascertain from Wade what it was that he was hoping to be granted by the court since he reported being pleased with relations between himself and the police.
In response Wade said he was hoping to be given an undertaking by the State that his client would be released at about 2:30 yesterday afternoon at which point the constitutional period for his detention would have expired.
He then asked for an adjournment to sometime later yesterday or today to be able to report to the court what may have transpired regarding Mingo’s release.
It was at this point the judge suggested to Wade that he withdraw the application, await the expiration of the constitutional 72 hours, assess what happens, and thereafter advise himself on the way forward.
Wade heeded the judge’s advice and withdrew.
The judge had, however, made it clear to him that it was ultimately his (Wade’s) decision to make
as to whether he wanted to withdraw or not.
Justice Persaud made no orders as to cost.
Mingo is one of two named defendants in charges filed on March 13th by Charles Ramson Jr. in relation to the controversial results for District Four.
The RO has, however, contended that his arrest and detention have been politically motivated and is asking for his immediate
release, contending that the lawmen have no basis in law or fact for his detention which he says is unlawful since he has committed no act of fraud or conspiracy.
Ramson, the PPP/ C party agent for District Four has accused Mingo and Lawrence of uttering a forged document with intent to defraud the public contrary to Section 278 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act.