Former murder accused cop loses challenge over holding of trial within reasonable time -AG’s Chambers

The Attorney General’s Chambers has reported that former Police Sergeant Colin Bailey, who was discharged in the murder of his wife after the prosecution admitted it had no evidence against him, has lost a challenge against the state on the claim that it did not facilitate his trial within a reasonable timeframe.

According to a release issued by the Chambers of the Attorney General (AG) on Thursday, Justice Damone Younge dismissed the application a month ago after she found that Bailey’s right to a fair hearing had not been infringed.

According to the release, Bailey had filed his right-to-fair-hearing challenge on July 15 of last year but the AG, Anil Nandlall, had only been served with the claim on October 14th, 2021—one day after he was freed of the capital charge— and three months after it was filed.

In his fixed date application, Bailey sought a declaration that his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 144 had been infringed and was seeking damages.

The release stated that the Attorney General’s contention, among other things, was that Bailey’s criminal proceedings were dealt with expeditiously and that there had been no “undue delay” in the prosecution of his case.

The AG is said to have argued, also, that the claimant failed to prove how his fundamental right to a fair hearing was breached and to advance any violations and/or infringement of Article 144 of the Constitution.

The release concluded by stating that the application had been decided in the AG’s favour on a finding by the judge after considering the circumstances of the case, that Bailey’s “right to a fair hearing was not infringed.”

However, Bailey also filed a separate $100 million wrongful arrest/imprisonment suit against the state in which he also argues among other things that his right to a fair hearing in reasonable time had been infringed. That suit is still to be heard and determined.

In his $100 million suit, filed on December 3 last, Bailey, who spent close to six years on remand, is seeking a number of declarations, including that his right guaranteed in Article 144 was breached.

He was freed after Justice Jo-Ann Barlow upheld a no-case submission made by his attorney, Nigel Hughes, following the admission by the prosecution that there was no evidence linking him to the crime.

Bailey’s common-law wife, businesswoman Sirmattie Ramnaress, 36, had been found dead on the morning of August 31, 2013 on the garage floor of her Diamond, East Bank Demerara home, with a stab wound and injuries to her head and body. An autopsy later determined that she died from cerebral haemorrhage as a result of blunt cranial trauma, compounded by fractured spine.

In November 2015, her neighbour, Colin Grant, was charged with her murder after police, being in receipt of information, were led to him and found in his possession the woman’s laptop which had her initials engraved on the battery. He then reportedly led the police to Ramnaress’ 11-point diamond ring, which he had presented to his girlfriend.

Close to three years after the murder, police informed Bailey that having conducted their investigations and based on the advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions, he would also be charged.

A jury for the trial of Bailey and his then co-accused Grant was empaneled for commencement on October 12th of last year. Before the matter started, however, Grant indicated through his attorney that he wanted to plead to the lesser offence of manslaughter.

He subsequently accepted that he had unlawfully killed the businesswoman. He was sentenced to 21 years behind bars but will serve only eight after deductions for his guilty plea and the period he spent on remand.

In her comments prior to acquitting Bailey, Justice Barlow had cautioned that the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions must ensure that cases satisfy the threshold needed before being brought to court; even as she noted that in the absence of even an iota of evidence, Bailey should not have been before the court.