Judge dismisses lawsuit claim for extra time in jail

A MAN who was sentenced to 18 months in jail with hard labour, but who remained in prison for 21 months awaiting his appeal, has lost his case seeking damages for the extra three months he was incarcerated.

The fact that Anthony Richardson's appeal took more than 18 months to be heard by appeal court judges, which resulted in his spending three extra months in the Remand Yard, was not found by Justice Frank Seepersad to be a violation of his fundamental right to freedom.

The judge said Richardson, 35, of Guapo Village, near Point Fortin, though he had appealed the conviction and sentence for cocaine while he was in jail, did not apply for bail while awaiting hearing of his appeal.

Richardson was convicted on September 21, 2015, but the following day, while in jail, he filed an appeal. However, it was not until April 12, 2017, after he had served 18 calendar months, he made an application for bail. When that application was determined, he had already been incarcerated, although in Remand Yard, for about 21 months. Bail was granted.

The appeal came up in June 2017 but Richardson did not bother to appear before the judges, having already been incarcerated for more than the 18 months' jail term imposed on him. Appeal Court judges dismissed his appeal, but ordered that the time he had already been incarcerated should be considered as time served.

In a constitutional motion filed by the law firm Roopnarine and Company, attorneys argued on Richardson's behalf that the lawful period of his jail sentence of 18 months should have been from September 15, 2015, to March 14, 2017. However, Richardson stayed until June 17, 2017 – three extra months. Therefore, the State should award him damages.

Richardson's attorneys contended that because it took more than 18 months for the appeal to be heard, and because there is no guarantee that bail would have been afforded, the State is liable for the extra three months he was incarcerated.

Seepersad, however, in a ruling handed down this morning, said the State is not guilty of any violation of Richardson's rights.

He said, "The claimant elected to appeal his sentence and it was his obligation to apply for bail. Unfortunately, he failed to engage that remedy and although the court empathises with his circumstance, he is not entitled to relief under the Constitution."

When an accused is sentenced to a term of imprisonment with hard labour, but appeals, he or she is immediately removed to Remand Yard, pending its hearing and determination. But even when bail is sought, it is not guaranteed that it would be granted.

As Richardson left the courthouse, he declined to comment, but attorney Shawn Roopnarine said he will most certainly be filing an appeal.