Judge dismisses ex-inmate’s constitutional claim for abuse

A recently released prisoner who spent almost three decades in prison has lost his lawsuit for compensation for a portion of his detention.

On April 29, Justice Betsy Ann Lambert-Peterson held that Reshi Bissoon’s constitutional claim was an abuse of the court’s process.

Bissoon, who spent over 27 years in prison for the 1995 murder of Leslie Ann Ramsey, sought declarations that his rights to liberty and legal protection were breached under the Constitution. He claimed he was unlawfully detained beyond the expected end of his sentence, arguing that he should have been released as early as August 2014, or by December 2018 at the latest.

In her ruling, Lambert-Peterson found that Bissoon’s claim was barred because he had already received constitutional redress through prior litigation, including his resentencing before Justice Gail Gonzales in February 2023.

That hearing, which followed decisions from the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council, had declared his original life sentence to be unconstitutional and resulted in an order for his immediate release based on time served.

In her ruling, Lambert-Peterson ruled that Bissoon’s current attempt to secure damages was a collateral attack on the prior judgment.

She said Justice Gonzales had already acknowledged violations of his constitutional rights but determined that declaratory relief was the appropriate remedy, declining to award damages.

“The claimant’s constitutional claim was considered and determined before a judge of the Criminal Division of the High Court at the re-sentencing hearing before Justice Gonzales. The issues were resolved before a court of equal jurisdiction with the Civil Division of the High Court.

“The current claim amounts to a collateral attack on the decision of Justice Gonzales. No good reason and no reasonable or cogent explanation have been provided for the Claimant not availing himself of an appeal.”

She said there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a re-litigation of the same constitutional issues. “The court cannot condone an abuse of its process,” she said, emphasising that relief under section 14 (of the Constitution) was reserved for situations where no other adequate remedy exists or has been exhausted.

Attorneys Peter Carter and Jonell Chang represented Bissoon while Rishi Dass, SC, Stefan Jaikaran, Gayatri Dass, Adana Hosang and Simon Branellec represented the State.