Judge: Resume in-person court hearings

A HIGH COURT judge wants the courts, particularly the summary courts, to be reopened for full in-person services.

Justice Frank Seepersad also again called for a reform in how malicious prosecution cases are brought by a litigant.

The judge made the call on October 23, at the end of a failed malicious prosecution claim by an El Carmen man arrested by police for a traffic offence on June 12, 2021.

In dismissing Avinash Karim’s lawsuit, ordering him to pay the State’s costs of $14,000, Seepersad said the case highlighted anomalies in the court system while also re-enforced the need for “definitive proactive steps” in malicious prosecution cases since the legal profession could not be relied on to “self-regulate.”

“This matter ought not to have been instituted. The system is inundated with malicious prosecution claims.”

Seepersad suggested weeding out cases with no prospect of success as is done in judicial review claims since they taxed an already overburdened court system and imposed constraints on judicial officers.

His call for the reopening of the courts came after analysing the documentary evidence submitted in the case when the charges against Karim were laid in the Chaguanas magistrates court and endorsed.

The judge said the “serious anomalies” reinforced the urgent need to “reopen all courts and full in-person services…the contradictions on court-generated documents are unacceptable, especially for summary offences which have defined limitation periods.”

In dismissing Karim’s case, he said he was unable to accept his evidence.

He said even if there was an error in the court record, he failed to call witnesses to support his contention that he was only granted bail when he appeared in court on June 14, 2021, and not at the Las Lomas police post.

A station diary extract said Karim was granted station bail and allowed to leave while he claimed he was made to sit while handcuffed in a chair for eight hours at the police post before being put in a cell and then taken to the Chaguanas police station before he appeared in court.

“The court was constrained, on the evidence, to reject the claimant’s contention as to the non-granting of bail and to dismiss completely all of the time he was incarcerated at Las Lomas and then taken to the Chaguanas police station before being taken to the Chaguanas court.

“The court also found that the claimant’s version of the material events lacked plausibility and is inherently improbable.”

It was Karim’s case that he and his brother were outside their home repairing an uncle’s motorcycle when PC Jerome Cupid and WPC Janelle Williams drove onto their private road and arrested him.

He claimed he was asked for a driver’s permit for the motorcycle although it was stationary and when asked why he was being ticketed, Cupid became hostile and arrested him.

The incident took place during the covid19 pandemic and Karim claimed he assumed it was over curfew restrictions.

However, Seepersad said his version was implausible.

“If, as he says, he was on a private road, which is some significant distance away from the common main road, why and how would these two officers just appear at his property when he was standing three feet from his front door? “Because clearly, you can’t see this property from the main road to tell him that he’s in breach of the covid19 regulations.

“It is almost absurd to contend that a police officer would go to someone’s yard when they were outside three feet from their front door to tell them that they were in breach of the covid regulations.

“Both officers, that is the complainant, Cupid and Williams, testified that they saw the claimant driving a motorcycle onto Hakim Trace.

“And the court, on a balance of probabilities, was inclined to accept the police’s version of these events.”

Both offices testified that Karim was driving on El Carmen Road before turning onto Hakim Trace when they stopped him and asked for his permit and insurance.

“It may well be that the claimant felt that that was private property and he was free to do as he was.

But on the evidence, the officers were able to drive onto that road and there was no visible sign or indication that it (Hakim Trace) was a private road.

“The conversation, which the court heard as well, also suggested that there was some degree of angst by the claimant.

“And on a balance of probabilities, it seems that the claimant was infuriated that he was being challenged over events which were taking place on property that he perceived to be his private property.

“The court can find absolutely no reason why it should condemn the actions of the police officers who were on patrol and noticed what appeared to them to be a breach of the traffic regulations and dealt with it.

“And, there is a double-edged sword because the police are often vilified for not enforcing the law.

“But when they do enforce the law, persons who perceive themselves to be law-abiding citizens and who are the subject of the police inquiry are taken aback and offended that they are challenged and brought before the court or arrested.

“Respect for the law requires that if one finds oneself in a situation where, though not typically the type of behaviour you would engage in, that you may be running afoul of the law, that you comply with the requirements and then you prove your position before the court.”