Attorneys for Barry Dataram have filed another set of proceedings in the High Court before Justice Roxanne George following the issuance of a provisional warrant by Magistrate Hazel Octive-Hamilton.
Dataram’s lawyers Vic Puran and Glen Hanoman filed Habeas Corpus proceedings when he was arrested on October 4 for breach of a court order. He remained in custody and another provisional warrant was issued for him. However, his lawyers contend that the police could not have arrested him for breach of a court order.
Hanoman explained that with the issuing of the warrant last Wednesday there are new concerns to be addressed.
The High Court hearing was adjourned last Wednesday for Puran and Hanoman to lay over submissions to show that their new arguments could be included in the Habeas Corpus proceedings. The attorneys argued last week that the warrant issued by Magistrate Octive-Hamilton was done so unlawfully and therefore not valid.
Yesterday they filed another set of proceedings to address the new issues, but still needed to prove that their arguments could be heard under Habeas Corpus proceedings, since according to Hanoman they wish all of their arguments to be heard as one case.
In court yesterday Puran argued that the decision by the magistrate could be challenged in Habeas Corpus, as it is as wide as the Writ of Certiorari, presenting several precedents in support.
Puran contended that Dataram’s arrest and the consequent provisional warrant was an abuse of power since he was already in custody when the authorities sought to have the warrant. He said too that the order by Octive-Hamilton was a nullity since she had not updated herself on the status of the case.
Puran argued that because the magistrates’ court proceeded with the matter ex parte (representation only made by one side), it must then apprise itself of all past and present proceedings involved in the matter, before making a decision. He alleged that this was not done.
Puran said Magistrate Octive-Hamilton proceeded ex parte with the matter even though defence made arguments to be heard. Puran emphasized that the act does not say such matters should be heard ex parte but that the suspect can be brought to court and be heard.
Quoting the Fugitive Offenders Act, Puran said the magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant since the warrant can only be issued on information and evidence. Puran contended that what the magistrate heard was “inadmissible hearsay,” therefore what transpired was an error of law.
He further said that Crime Chief Seelall Persaud swore to hearsay when he took to the witness stand in the magistrates’ court, giving evidence in relation to the request for the extradition of Dataram by the US.
Meanwhile Attorney General Doodnauth Singh prepared his affidavit in response to the arguments defence had put down last week but it could only be heard amicus in court yesterday as a result of a procedural error that sprang from the letter that was sent to the AG by the defence last week requesting his presence in court. Because Habeas Corpus proceedings are supposed to be heard ex parte at the first instance, the Attorney General cannot reply until Justice George grants an order for the state to show cause why the case must not continue.
Provisional arrest warrants have been issued three times in the magistrates’ court for Dataram. In all instances, Puran has moved to the High Court to secure his release. The last time he did so successfully was last December, when Justice Jainarayan Singh Jnr ruled that Dataram’s detention was unlawful.
Police started showing interest in Dataram after the alleged drug-linked kidnapping of his wife, Sheleza and their three-year-old daughter last December by two Venezuelans, one of whom was shot dead.
Dataram was arrested and detained by the police beyond the 72 hours that the law allows a person to be held in custody before being charged.
