Anthony Richardson v The Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mr. Justice Frank Seepersad
• Judgment Date: 26 September 2018
• Neutral Citation: TT 2018 HC 197
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. CV2018-00988
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 26 September 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Frank Seepersad

CLAIM NO. CV2018-00988

Between

Anthony Richardson

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

Appearances

1. Mr. E. Roopnarine instructed by Ms. Balgobin for the Claimant

2. Ms. S. Sukhram and Ms. A. Ramsook for the Defendant

Civil Practice and Procedure - Application for declaratory relief in relation to an infringement of fundamental rights as enshrined under section 4(a) of the Constitution and particularized under sections 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b), 5(2)(c), 5(2)(f) and 5(2)(h) where the Claimant contended that his rights were violated by reason of his continued imprisonment from 15 March 2017 to 4 My 2017 — Whether the Claimant's claim for constitutional redress ought to have been allowed — Whether the claim amounted to an abuse of the court's process.

Oral judgment reduced into writing

1 Before the Court for its determination is the Claimant's Fixed Date Claim Form filed on the 22 ^nd March, 2018 by virtue of which the Claimant sought declaratory relief in relation to an infringement of his fundamental rights as enshrined under section 4(a) of the Constitution and particularised under sections 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b), 5(2)(c), 5(2)(f) and 5(2)(h). He contends that his rights were violated by reason of his continued imprisonment from the 15 ^th March, 2017 to 4 ^th May, 2017. He has also asked the court for damages inclusive of aggravated and/or exemplary damages.

2 The Claimant was arrested and charged for the offence of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking on 21 ^st September, 2015 and was sentenced to 18 months hard labour. On the 22 ^nd September, 2015, he appealed the said order. At the time of the appeal, no application for bail pending appeal was filed. On the 12 ^th April, 2017, the Claimant proceeded to apply for bail, having served some 18 months in custody. The bail application came up before the Hon. Madame Justice Windsor and at that hearing the Court was informed of the length of the Claimant's incarceration and the Court granted him his own bail in the sum of $10,000.00. Subsequently, on the 10 ^th June, 2017, the Claimant's hearing came up before the Court of Appeal and the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the time spent in custody be time served. The Claimant contends that his incarceration exceeded the maximum time for which his original sentence of 18 months was set to run and as a result, his constitutional rights were breached.

Issue

3 The primary issue that the Court has to consider at this stage is whether or not the Claimant's claim for constitutional redress ought not to be allowed and whether same amounts to an abuse of the court's process.

Law and Analysis

4 The law as it relates to abuse of process in constitutional matters and the approach that ought to be taken by the Court is pellucid and there are a series of Privy Council decision starting from Harrikissoon v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1980] AC 265to Jaroo v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2001] UKPC 5 and Attorney General of Trindad and Tobago v Ramanoop [2005] UKPC 15 which guide the approach which should be followed. These cases consistently adopted the position that an abuse of the Court's process will be occasioned where a constitutional motion has been filed in...