Bassarath et Al v Ag of Trinidad and Tobago

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Lucky, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 July 1995
• Neutral Citation: TT 1995 HC 072
• Docket Number: No. 1020 of 1993
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 14 July 1995

High Court

Lucky, J.

No. 1020 of 1993

Bassarath et al

and

Ag of Trinidad and Tobago

Appearances:

Miss Alana Bissessar for the applicants

Mr. R. Lai Choy for the respondent

Practice and procedure - Application made by the plaintiff alleging that the State in summoning the applicants and requiring them to answer the charge pursuant to the notice was unconstitutional and illegal and that the procedure followed by both the executive and judicial arm of the state in effecting the notice is also unconstitutional and illegal — There was no predetermination of guilt — Procedure followed by judge exercising his inherent jurisdiction cannot be faulted — Applicants charged with contempt of court — “Contempt in the cognisance of the court” can also mean instances within the court room but not necessarily seen by the judge as in the instant matter where the judge has been informed of the alleged contempt — Balogh v. St. Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 Q.B. applied — No evidence of infringement of any right — Motion dismissed.

Lucky, J.

History (Introduction):

1 On 23rd July 1993 the applicants' brother, one Bobby Ramesar, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment after a jury returned a verdict of guilty against him on a charge of receiving stolen property.

2 Later that day it was brought to the attention of the trial judge that the jury was threatened and harassed in the court room immediately after the court rose. Because of the threats and fear of further harassment, members of the jury asked court officials to escort them through the rear of the court building. They were taken through the private exit to the basement where they were allegedly harassed once more.

3 The learned judge decided that he would conduct further enquiries to ascertain whether there had been a contempt of court. The Court heard evidence on oath from two members of the jury and directed the police to conduct enquiries to verify the identity of the persons involved in the alleged threats and harassment of the jurors. As a result of the enquiries the applicants were summarily charged for contempt of court and the Registrar was directed to issue notices to compel the applicants to attend court so that they could be informed of the charge and given an opportunity to answer.

4 The applicants appeared on the appointed day and pleaded not guilty. After hearing arguments with respect to jurisdiction and bias, the learned judge directed the Registrar to forward all documentation to the Honourable Attorney General for whatever course of action he deemed necessary.

The Action:

5 By notice of motion dated 29th July 1993, the applicants seek the following reliefs:–

• 1. A declaration that the action of the State in summoning the applicants and requiring them to answer the charge pursuant to the Notice referred to above is unconstitutional and illegal.

• 2. A declaration that the procedure followed by both the executive and judicial arm of the state in effecting the Notice referred to above is unconstitutional and illegal.

• 3. A declaration that it is unconstitutional and illegal for the Honourable Mr. Justice Lennox Deyalsingh or any judge sitting pursuant to the said Notice to assume jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said Notice.

• 4. Monetary compensation.

• 5. Costs.

• 6. All such writs, orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to enforce the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to the applicants by sections 4(a), (b), (d), 2(b), 5(c)(ii), 5(d), 5(e). 5(h)(i), (ii) and 5(i) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.

• 7. Such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

6 The grounds upon which the motion is based are:–

• (1) It will be contrary to the rules of natural justice for the Honourable Mr. Justice Lennox Deyalsingh to adjudicate upon this matter.

• (2) The court (Deyalsingh, J.) or any other judge has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter pursuant to the Notice referred to above.

• (3) The procedure adopted by the executive and/or judicial arm of the state in initiating and/or causing these proceedings to be brought against the applicants is contrary to established principles of law and in particular section 4 and 5 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.

• (4) The impugned action of the State contravenes the right to the freedom of expression as guaranteed in section to 4(i) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.

The Evidence:

7 The evidence comprises the joint affidavit of the applicants and the exhibits which are set out hereunder; and, the affidavit of the Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court, Sub-Registry, San Fernando to which the record of proceedings in the matter of contempt of court against the applicants and Winston Campbell an attorney-at-law. The applicants' affidavit reads:–

“We, INDRANIE BASSARATH and MYRNA RAMISAR of 9 Quarry Road Siparia, Accounts Clerk and Secretary, respectively, jointly and severally make oath and say as follows:–

• 1. We are the applicants herein. The facts deposed to herein are true and correct and are within our personal knowledge, save where we depose to the contrary.

• 2. Bobby Ramesar is our brother. He was on the 23rd day of July, 1993 convicted by a jury at the San Fernando High Court for receiving stolen goods and sentenced by the Honourable Mr. Justice Lennox Deyalsingh (hereinafter referred to as (the said judge() to seven (7) years hard labour.

• 3. We were, present in court on the 23rd day of July, 1993. After he was sentenced the said judge left the court room. After a while we also left.

• 4. On Tuesday the 27th day of July, 1993 we read in the Trinidad Express and the Trinidad Guardian articles true copies of which are now produced and shown to us and are hereto annexed and marked “I.B.M.R.1” and “I.B.M.R.2” respectively. Pursuant to what was stated in the said articles we saw Assistant Commissioner of Police Cyrus Liverpool. He interviewed us as to what transpired between the time the judge left the court room and the time we left the court room on the 23rd day of July, 1993. Pursuant to that interview we gave him a statement which he recorded. Type written copies of these statements are now produced and shown to us and are hereto annexed and marked “I.B.M.R.3” and “I.B.M.R.4”, respectively.

• 5. On the 28th day of July, 1993, at around 7:00 pm. two Notices summoning us to appear before the Honourable Mr. Justice Lennox Deyalsingh on Friday the 30th day of July, 1993 were brought to our attention. We are informed by our sister-in-law Susan Ramisar that these two Notices were served at our home at about 2:00 pm. We were not home at the time they were served. True copies of the said Notices are now produced and shown to us and are hereto annexed and marked “I.B.M.R.5” and “I.B.M.R.6”, respectively.

• 6. On the 29th day of July, 1993 we sought the advice of Mr. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, advocate attorney, in respect of both Notices and we requested his assistance to appear for us at the hearing fixed by the Notices for the 30th day of July, 1993. He indicated to us that having regard to his commitments he would be unable to appear but would be available in October 1993.

• 7. Based upon his advice we instructed the firm of Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and Company to institute Constitutional proceedings against the State of Trinidad and Tobago for relief under section 14 of the Constitution in respect of violations by the State of our rights as guaranteed by sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.

• 8. We are advised by advocate attorney-at-law and verily believe that we are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the Notice of Motion on the basis of the grounds alleged therein.

• 9. We are further advised by advocate attorney-at-law and verily believe that our constitutional rights as enshrined in sections 4(a), 4(b), 4(j), 5(2)e, 5(2)j and 5(2)h of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago have been infringed and/or are likely to be infringed in relation to us having regard to impugned action of the State.”

STATEMENT OF INDRANIE BASSARATH (Ex 1 B.M.R.4):

“On Friday 23rd July, 1993, I was in attendance at the Criminal Court (High Court) where matters were being heard against my brother Bobby Ramesar. On the conclusion of the case the jury found my brother guilty on the charge of receiving a motor car knowing it to be stolen The judge Justice Deyalsingh then passed sentence of seven years hard labour on my brother. I felt very sorry for him my brother. I knew that he was not guilty of none of the charges preferred against him. After the judge had left the court, there was no court in session, I said ‘you people made a mistake. You people will have to pay for it. I was addressing the people who had been the jury in the case, but I was commenting on the justice system.

Acting Assistant Commissioner of Police Mr. Liverpool you told me that it was said that these statements were made. ‘All yuh will pay for this, All yuh don't know justice; we go do for all yuh.’ I never made these statements and I never heard them made while I was in that courtroom. Before the judge summed up the case on Friday 23rd July, 1993. I met Rustan Ali downstairs outside the court building on the street. I was at the time in company with my sister, sister-in-law and my brother their names are Myrna Ramesar, Nuripa Ramesar and Bobby Ramesar. He Rustan Ali came to us and remarked as follows to Bobby Ramesar, ‘I know you did not do it, and you had nothing to do with the car, He shook my brother's hand and said ‘whatever happens I know that you are innocent.’ When the case was concluded and sentence passed on my brother I went to Rustan Ali where he was seated with his head bowed and I remarked, ‘You know my brother is innocent, you know he did not do it, you spoke to us downstairs and you shook my brothers hand.’ He replied, ‘There's nothing I can do now.’ I was making these remarks...