Police given tight deadline to charge kidnap, murder suspect or release him

THE police have until 10 am on August 13 to decide on laying charges against a man in their custody for over four days on suspicion of kidnapping and murder, or releasing him.

Justice Carol Gobin made the order on August 12, and granted a writ of habeas corpus the man’s attorneys had filed the day before.

The man was held on August 8 in connection with the kidnapping of a Venezuelan minor. He is also a suspect in the killing of a RideShare driver from Cunupia, Shakem Charles.

In documents filed in court, the police said they had arrested two men in connection with a kidnapping for ransom report involving a Venezuelan minor.

They explained attempts were made to seek search warrants, CCTV footage and get statements from the boy and his family with the assistance of a translator before questioning the suspects.

Investigators said an interview on August 11 had to be postponed because the attorney and sister of one of the suspects were not present.

Police said the application for the writ of habeas corpus was then filed for one of the suspects.

“At all material times the investigative officers continued to make necessary enquiries and received further pertinent evidence relative to the instant offence and to progress the investigation. It is stated that due to the sensitivity of the investigative process, as same involved a minor child and non-English speaking nationals, in the interest of fairness and justice to both sides, a thorough, careful and discreet investigation is required.”

Investigators also said officers of the Anti Kidnapping Unit also had to do interviews before a decision was made on the suspect’s detention.

However, the man’s attorneys, Keron Ramkhalwhan, Lloyd Robinson and Randal Raphael, said in the application their client had been arrested on enquiries and kept at the Besson Street police station, during which time his sister visited. One of the attorneys was also told he had been detained for inquiries and investigations would be completed by August 10.

But, they said, when the interview did not take place, they sent a pre-action letter after 10 pm on August 10, querying the man’s continued detention and calling on the police to either release or charge him.

They also said the police did not give a time for a rescheduled interview on August 11, failed to justify their client’s detention in a response, and up until the application for the writ was filed, no interview had been done.

“ The respondent has failed to provide any further response at the time of filing these proceedings…To date, no further investigative steps have been completed by the police officers after his initial arrest.

“The police officers failed to provide any indication on whether they will be proffering charges and/or releasing the applicant.

“For the sake of clarity, the applicant was detained approximately three days and has not been interviewed by the investigator/s.

“No timeline has been provided for the conclusion of the investigation. The police officers have failed to indicate when a decision will be taken to charge and/or release the applicant.”